The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

Churches now want to be a part of the political process. So if that is the case why not remove their tax exempt status now?

Bet they will run screaming and crying if you do that.

Funny, I didn't see the Quakers doing anything political...

I think it's only natural that if they want in on the game they loose their exemption.

But more importantly, separation of church/religion and state should be maintained.

Exemptions? You realise that by saying things like that you are no different than Annoyed and Garkhal who lump all Muslims and Muslim groups together into one negative image?

[Gatefan1976]

Funny, I didn't see the Quakers doing anything political...

Don't have a lot of Quakers out here in Oz Tood,
Except for oats....

Exemptions? You realise that by saying things like that you are no different than Annoyed and Garkhal who lump all Muslims and Muslim groups together into one negative image?

Not really, more like all religious organizations. You fought a war over taxation without representation, why allow representation without taxation?
It's not a moral issue, it's a legal one.

[Falcon Horus]

God bless (what was?) America.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-twitte...p-state-724654

Saw that tweet on my timeline.

Exemptions? You realise that by saying things like that you are no different than Annoyed and Garkhal who lump all Muslims and Muslim groups together into one negative image?

Not really, more like all religious organizations. You fought a war over taxation without representation, why allow representation without taxation?
It's not a moral issue, it's a legal one.

What he said.

[Annoyed]

Don't have a lot of Quakers out here in Oz Tood,
Except for oats....

Not really, more like all religious organizations. You fought a war over taxation without representation, why allow representation without taxation?
It's not a moral issue, it's a legal one.

You are still ignoring the point I made above. The churches themselves are not supposed to be politically active, or they risk losing their tax exempt status.

But the individual congregation members have the same right as anyone else to be politically active.

[thekillman]

Aaand trump's war on truth continues:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...r-right-leader

let's blame people who aren't migrants as migrants! who cares that they aren't migrants, this video of non-migrants proves that migrants are the problems! (actual stance of the White House).

[LtColCarter]

Aaand trump's war on truth continues:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...r-right-leader

let's blame people who aren't migrants as migrants! who cares that they aren't migrants, this video of non-migrants proves that migrants are the problems! (actual stance of the White House).

Anything he says or does causes my brain to hurt. I just don't see how someone could possibly be on the planet as long as he's been and be so dim witted!

[thekillman]

Anything he says or does causes my brain to hurt. I just don't see how someone could possibly be on the planet as long as he's been and be so dim witted!

He simply doesn't care. It's not even that he pretends to not care, it seems trump is biologically incapable of caring about anything other than himself.

[jelgate]

Anything he says or does causes my brain to hurt. I just don't see how someone could possibly be on the planet as long as he's been and be so dim witted!

That is because you are trying to apply logic to Trump. It makes more sense when you frame it as a drinking game

[thekillman]

That is because you are trying to apply logic to Trump. It makes more sense when you frame it as a drinking game

Don't tell me the drinking game is "drink when he says anything stupid". You won't survive.

[Gatefan1976]

You are still ignoring the point I made above. The churches themselves are not supposed to be politically active, or they risk losing their tax exempt status.

Don't be so sure:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.7aec0e44ddea

But the individual congregation members have the same right as anyone else to be politically active.

Yes, the can, but when they become public servants, it is not their role to represent one faction of their constituants, it's to represent all of them and when you allow churches to "buy" candidates like any other corp or lobby group, you cross the line.

[Gatefan1976]

In the meantime, Donnie tosswad has found some new alt right buddies to play with:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-3...cks-uk/9209648

It's not the fake news MSM that is turning the USA into a international joke, it's Morons Are Governing America.

[Annoyed]

Don't be so sure:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.7aec0e44ddea

Yes, the can, but when they become public servants, it is not their role to represent one faction of their constituants, it's to represent all of them and when you allow churches to "buy" candidates like any other corp or lobby group, you cross the line.

Is that anything like labor unions, who are also tax exempt, and funded by their dues paying members outright backing political candidates?

http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/hillar...-labor-unions/

Or is it only objectionable when the organization in question supports right leaning positions?

[aretood2]

Don't have a lot of Quakers out here in Oz Tood,
Except for oats....

Not really, more like all religious organizations. You fought a war over taxation without representation, why allow representation without taxation?
It's not a moral issue, it's a legal one.

But we do. We also have a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses too who by (as do others) doctrinal position shun politics all together. It's literally a sin to even have a political opinion. You see, Evangelicals and Catholics are the ones who mostly do the politicking and even then that's not the whole story.

Saw that tweet on my timeline.





What he said.

And as Annoyed said..... (And talk about a broken clock being right twice a day...no offense Annoyed)

Is that anything like labor unions, who are also tax exempt, and funded by their dues paying members outright backing political candidates?

http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/hillar...-labor-unions/

Or is it only objectionable when the organization in question supports right leaning positions?

This. SOOOO much this. You see, can't blame the churches that do politick for doing the same thing that secular non-profits do. And it is not limited to labor unions too. This is just a case of "Eivuuuuuuul Christians". Then add to the mix the number of churches that stand apart from the political process and the few that see politics as a sin. .


Edit: And I would like to add that we do have this little thing called the "Free Exercise Clause". Part of one of the main prongs of the Lemon Test is that any state law or action that inhibits religion is unconstitutional. Specifically seeking out religions when it comes to removing exemptions while ignoring these other nonprofit groups is inhibiting religion. If it is the specific practices of specific churches then you have to also deal with the secular groups in the same manner. You can not target religion in state actions. It's either all such organizations lose tax exemptions or none. All are treated the same or none are treated at all.

[Gatefan1976]

Is that anything like labor unions, who are also tax exempt, and funded by their dues paying members outright backing political candidates?

http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/hillar...-labor-unions/

Or is it only objectionable when the organization in question supports right leaning positions?

Not at all, but I suggest you look at the differences between the two legally.
Edit:
Nice piece of whataboutism, I answered before I even thought about it, you have learned well from your master.

[Gatefan1976]

But we do. We also have a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses too who by (as do others) doctrinal position shun politics all together. It's literally a sin to even have a political opinion. You see, Evangelicals and Catholics are the ones who mostly do the politicking and even then that's not the whole story.

Pointing out the ones who remain apolitical means nothing tood, especially in a place that is predominantly either evangelical, or catholic if they hold a religious belief
You are asking me to ignore the majority position which has the financial clout to act and concentrate on the groups that don't. I see no value in that.

And as Annoyed said..... (And talk about a broken clock being right twice a day...no offense Annoyed)


This. SOOOO much this. You see, can't blame the churches that do politick for doing the same thing that secular non-profits do. And it is not limited to labor unions too. This is just a case of "Eivuuuuuuul Christians". Then add to the mix the number of churches that stand apart from the political process and the few that see politics as a sin. .

No, it's not. They are governed by separate rules and held to different standards. look into the various sections of the 501 tax code if you do not believe me. IF they were held to the same standards, if 501 was a universal law, then let the unions either obey the law, or loose their status

Edit: And I would like to add that we do have this little thing called the "Free Exercise Clause". Part of one of the main prongs of the Lemon Test is that any state law or action that inhibits religion is unconstitutional. Specifically seeking out religions when it comes to removing exemptions while ignoring these other nonprofit groups is inhibiting religion. If it is the specific practices of specific churches then you have to also deal with the secular groups in the same manner. You can not target religion in state actions. It's either all such organizations lose tax exemptions or none. All are treated the same or none are treated at all.

But they are not dealt with in the same manner -under the law-