Whose Truth Should We Be Allowed To Hear?

[PoliticalChic]

Answer correctly, and you will never vote Democrat.



1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.

2. And, second, but more important point is that the Democrat party is the party of censorship, of opposition to free speech.
In an America supposedly guided by the Constitution, wherein we find the first amendment… Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…we find the major political party doing, and planning to do, exactly that.


Consider this:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



3. As Liberals/Democrat have grown stronger, they now apply the same censorship everywhere they can. For several months, perhaps longer, there has been a constant complaint by conservatives that they have been banned, censored, ‘shadow banned,’ whatever, on social media. One might argue that these are privately owned, by wealthy Democrats/Liberals, and that they are simply supporting their party.
I say it is unamerican and requires the same response that government used in citing monopolies.
The fact is, Democrat/Liberals/Progressives have no intention of allowing debate, as they always lose same. And, they use the same advantages to silence the other side when they gain power in government.



4. Which brings up the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. “The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.[18] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.” Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia



5. While those not paying close attention might have been fooled into believing that the case was about whether a particular entity could use money in a particular manner, it was actually a case of the Democrats claiming the right to censor speech.

In particular, it is the Democrats forbidding criticism of politicians. Democrat politicians...and their policies and practices.

And this thread is a cautionary tale for the upcoming election.

There was a time when Republicans were the part of the rich and the Democrats were the party of the working man. That time was a hundred years ago. Over the decades, the Democrats have become the party of the people who take from the government and the Republicans have become the party of those who give to the government. Both parties court the rich because that's where the money is.

See post #11 for comparison.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Answer correctly, and you will never vote Democrat.



1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.

2. And, second, but more important point is that the Democrat party is the party of censorship, of opposition to free speech.
In an America supposedly guided by the Constitution, wherein we find the first amendment… Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…we find the major political party doing, and planning to do, exactly that.


Consider this:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



3. As Liberals/Democrat have grown stronger, they now apply the same censorship everywhere they can. For several months, perhaps longer, there has been a constant complaint by conservatives that they have been banned, censored, ‘shadow banned,’ whatever, on social media. One might argue that these are privately owned, by wealthy Democrats/Liberals, and that they are simply supporting their party.
I say it is unamerican and requires the same response that government used in citing monopolies.
The fact is, Democrat/Liberals/Progressives have no intention of allowing debate, as they always lose same. And, they use the same advantages to silence the other side when they gain power in government.



4. Which brings up the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. “The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.[18] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.” Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia



5. While those not paying close attention might have been fooled into believing that the case was about whether a particular entity could use money in a particular manner, it was actually a case of the Democrats claiming the right to censor speech.

In particular, it is the Democrats forbidding criticism of politicians. Democrat politicians...and their policies and practices.

And this thread is a cautionary tale for the upcoming election.

"Virginia School Board Weighs Speech Code that Would Prohibit Criticism of Equity Plan
...employees of the school district would not be allowed to criticize the school district's "commitment to action-oriented equity practices" in all forms of public and personal communication. The speech code is hidden inside a "professional conduct" policy proposal, which prohibits behavior that undermines "the views, positions, goals, policies, or public statements of the Loudoun County School Board or its superintendent."

The code briefly acknowledges employees have a First Amendment right to engage in protected speech, but says that right "may be outweighed" by the school district's interest in "promoting internal … and external community harmony and peace" as well as "class equity, racial equity, and the goal to root out systemic racism."

"It's deeply concerning that a public school system—which is a state actor and is bound to uphold the First Amendment—seems determined to police its employees' speech on matters of public concern," Neily said. "The school's plan is … designed to chill speech with which the district disagrees."

The new policy proposal also tells employees they have a "duty to report" their colleagues' alleged speech code violations ,,,"

Virginia School Board Weighs Speech Code that Would Prohibit Criticism of Equity Plan

Loudoun County Public School district board will vote on whether to adopt a speech code that would prohibit teachers from criticizing diversity initiatives.

freebeacon.com

 

[Blues Man]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.

Stop pretending that there has been.

The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies

 

[PoliticalChic]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.

Stop pretending that there has been.

The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies

"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?

 

[BlueGin]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

 

[pknopp]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

Jo Jorgensen is a she.

 

[BlueGin]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

Jo Jorgensen is a she.

So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.

 

[pknopp]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

Jo Jorgensen is a she.

So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.

I'm pretty sure that if you aren't even aware of the sex of a candidate that you have no clue what they stand for.

 

[BlueGin]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

Jo Jorgensen is a she.

So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.

I'm pretty sure that if you aren't even aware of the sex of a candidate that you have no clue what they stand for.

Um...Jo is the feminine version of the name Joe. Odd how you would assume I don’t know who the candidate is and what they support when I just told you that I dont agree with what they promote... “he” was just a spell check typo of “her” but go ahead and run with THAT if you must.

 

[Rigby5]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.

Stop pretending that there has been.

The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies

"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?

That is mixing apples and oranges.
The law did not prohibit free speech from the pulpit, but just prevented a religious tax exemption to be illegally used to lobby.
The law likely actually improved religious freedom, because religion should be about permanent ethical values, not lobbying for contemporary candidates. If a pulpit is used to push one candidate over another, it likely is not serving the actual religion it claims to be serving. A religious leader can be an expert on his religion, but when it comes to political candidates, that would just be someone's opinion, and not based on the actual religion.
For example, if a particular religion says abortion is bad, that would mean members of that religion should not get abortions, but it does NOT mean they should try to pass a law preventing other religions from getting abortions.
That would not be based on the religion, but instead an illegal and immoral attempt to force one religion over all other religions.

 

[Rigby5]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

Jo Jorgensen is a she.

So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.

I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.

Libertarians are sort of the opposite of Liberals, if that is where the confusion came from?

 

[BlueGin]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

Jo Jorgensen is a she.

So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.

I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.

Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.

 

[Blues Man]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.

Stop pretending that there has been.

The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies

"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?

It doesn't

They can still say whatever they want. Like I said the only thing that will happen is the church they run might lose its government subsidies. So it's easy to see that churches care more about their special tax treatment than they care about politics.

And pastor or priest as a private citizen can still be active in politics he just can't do it from the pulpit as a mouthpiece for the church and the fact is many churches do not allow their clergy to mix politics with their religious duties so you might as well be saying that various Christian churches are violating their clergy's right to free speech.

As I said earlier the Catholic church cannon prohibits any priests from mixing politics with their religious duties.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.

Stop pretending that there has been.

The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies

"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?

That is mixing apples and oranges.
The law did not prohibit free speech from the pulpit, but just prevented a religious tax exemption to be illegally used to lobby.
The law likely actually improved religious freedom, because religion should be about permanent ethical values, not lobbying for contemporary candidates. If a pulpit is used to push one candidate over another, it likely is not serving the actual religion it claims to be serving. A religious leader can be an expert on his religion, but when it comes to political candidates, that would just be someone's opinion, and not based on the actual religion.
For example, if a particular religion says abortion is bad, that would mean members of that religion should not get abortions, but it does NOT mean they should try to pass a law preventing other religions from getting abortions.
That would not be based on the religion, but instead an illegal and immoral attempt to force one religion over all other religions.

There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.

Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.

Now.....would you rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

LBJ silences religious folks.
Kagan says speech can be restricted.
Obama says books can be banned.

And the result is the acceptance of totalitarian beliefs by our youth:

"Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable
Posted by Mike LaChance Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 10:00am
“Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.”

Campus Reform reports:

REPORT: Disturbing number of college students justify shutting down speech with violence

Nearly one in five U.S. college students said they approve of violence in response to speech on campus in at least some instances.
A survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse asked 20,000 students at 55 colleges across the nation questions regarding free speech issues on their campuses. Students were asked whether violence is acceptable to shut down a speaker they didn’t like and if it is acceptable for students to block people from attending an event.
Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent.
One percent of students said that violence is “always” acceptable, 3 percent said it is “sometimes” acceptable,” and 13 percent said it is “rarely acceptable.” That means a total of 17 percent of respondents condoned violence to shut down speech in at least some instances.

Results show that self-censorship is also an issue for both conservative and liberal students, but that conservative students are more impacted.
“Survey responses show that students who identify as Conservative are more likely to report self-censorship than Liberal students (72% vs. 55%). Moderate students fell between the two, with 62% reporting self- censorship,” the report stated."

Survey Finds Disturbing Number of Students Believe Silencing Speech With Violence is Acceptable

"Acceptance of using violence to stop speech or an event from occurring was at nearly 20 percent."

legalinsurrection.com

America was a noble experiment,.....

There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want.

Stop pretending that there has been.

The church likes its special treatment more than it cares about who is running for office because after all religion is big business and likes its subsidies

"There has been no law passed that prohibits any clergy from saying anything they want."


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



Any other lies you'd like to be called out on?

It doesn't

They can still say whatever they want. Like I said the only thing that will happen is the church they run might lose its government subsidies. So it's easy to see that churches care more about their special tax treatment than they care about politics.

And pastor or priest as a private citizen can still be active in politics he just can't do it from the pulpit as a mouthpiece for the church and the fact is many churches do not allow their clergy to mix politics with their religious duties so you might as well be saying that various Christian churches are violating their clergy's right to free speech.

As I said earlier the Catholic church cannon prohibits any priests from mixing politics with their religious duties.

They would be punished for speech the Fascists that you support, don't approve of.



There is a clear and despotic difference between free speech, and government only authorized speech.

Obviously you are one of the simpletons who has suffered indelible indoctrination.

Now.....would rather 'have a good day,' or Sieg Heil'?

 

[pknopp]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

Jo Jorgensen is a she.

So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.

I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.

Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.

Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?

 

[BlueGin]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

Jo Jorgensen is a she.

So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.

I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.

Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.

Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?

BLM are Marxists. So...yes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

Jo Jorgensen is a she.

So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.

I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.

Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.

Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?

"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."

You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:

 

[BlueGin]

If you cared about the country you wouldn't vote for either party.

Then I will tell the 3rd parties what I tell the democrats and republicans. If you want me to vote for you give me a good candidate to support. Not a McCain...Not a Biden ...and definitely not a Jo Jorgensen and he support of CRT...etc.

Jo Jorgensen is a she.

So? I still don’t support Marxism. Even if they want to call themselves libertarian.

I am not following the whole conversation here, but Libertarians are sort of anarchists, but extremely right wing.
They believe in maximum decentralization and laissez faire capitalism.
That puts them diametrically opposed to Marxists, even though they have some similarities.

Their current candidate supports BLM and the diversity rhetoric the left is pushing. I can’t get behind that.

Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her. You support the police state and then complain about Marxism?

"Jo coming out for BLM is why I decided to support her."

You are the sort of imbecile that bodes ill for America's future:

Apparently the current Libertarian party thinks Marxism is more palpable in its. “ light “ form. I don’t though.