I don't understand why churches or any religious organizations are tax exempt. I don't have a religion, and I, and others like me, pay their share of public amenities like utilities.
That's one issue.
Now there's a way to funnel monies thru churches to candidates. It will be easy to fund campaigns secretly, outside of contribution laws. Count on it.
BTW, the New Yorker article linked here is paywalled.
True! SCOTUS has perviously declared money is equivalent to speech, especially by corporations. It is an extremely small step to include Churches under that umbrella.
Another issue is that if religious organizations are allowed to lobby directly for political candidates the next step is to declare anyone in their congregation who does not support that candidate is not following their religion, and shouldn't be a member of that congregation.
The First Amendment went from protecting you from gov overreach to the government favoring one religion over the rest. Thank The Heritage Foundation for creating this twisted Constitutional doctrine.
I said this on another site: This might backfire on the far right, even evangelicals. Black churches will be free to endorse whomever they want. Pope Leo might go all out on the rad-trads who support POS, and encourage the bishops to start endorsing Catholics and others who actually believe Matthew 25 and follow it. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops might start endorsing those people as well. Most religious people aren't MAGA evangelicals, or rad-trad christians (small c deliberate), and actually believe in real Christian beliefs.
This is going to backfire for churches, at least the ones who support it. At the same time, it will harden the resolve of the ones who have been overtly political for years now. Writ large, organized religions have been losing followers for years, and a big reason is due to preaching politics from the pulpit. It simply is not the reason most people go to church, and I believe most still go for reasons of fellowship and self-improvement.
I will be interested to see what happens among churches who decide not to take advantage of this. We are likely to see more “sorting” of congregants. People who have been hanging on in radical congregations might feel forced to change to one that decides to be apolitical, or is already. Eventually, we will see congregations that are indistinguishable from Proud Boys meetings.
This is a minority less than the 40%-ish number who still support Trump.
Churches have been making similar demands for decades.
Obamacare requires insurers to cover birth control, except for employers with a religious objection to birth control. Notre Dame refused to sign a piece of paper stating it had a religious objection, then sued.
After losing, and I assume being laughed at by clerks for the judges, they appealed to SCOTUS which sent the case back to the appellate court for reconsideration in light of the odious Hobby Lobby case. The outrage on campus forced the university to withdraw its objection and provide standard Obamacare coverage.
One of the leaders in the fight for public money for religious schools is at the ND Law School. Also, that's where John Roberts ally Amy Coney Barrett taught.
Infuriating: “Religious freedom” seems to define “religion” as if its only concerns are homophobia, white skin color and a dim view of women. Not certain Jesus would agree … especially since antisemitism is also in the recipe.
The Extremes base their religious "liberty" rulings on lies: the coach was not "quietly praying by himself" and the website maker had no standing so the ACTUAL issue could be ignored--could she be required to deal with same sex couples if they accepted every stricture and scripture she wanted to stick in the site. Instead the court pompously said you can't force people to create things contrary to their religious beliefs, which comes under the heading of DUH. Anyone ever claimed a hijab maker could be forced to sell rosaries? With no actual FACTS before the court, it just slip slid into the idea that for religious folks, discrimination against folks for their STATUS is likely to be OK so long as creativity is somehow involved.
And now a lower court is following its lead. A new way to turn us into a theocracy. Just bring a complaint for that doing anything--maybe murder on Fifth Avenue--with a "religious" basis is cool, and this DOJ will just reach a settlement that says "oh, you're right, the victim might be a Muslim and thus that murder must have been because his presence offended the sincere religious belief of the killer.
That "one day" recommendation for violation of civil rights of Briona shows the pattern. Apparently per DOJ unless you actually shoot someone you can't violate their civil rights. If the judge ignores the recommendation and gives a serious sentence, on appeal all the shooter has to say is that he had a "sincere religious belief" that it was necessary to shoot into the house with no warning and bingo. Case dismissed.
Churches should be wary of this change in policy. It likely means that not only will they not lose tax-exempt status for publicly supporting political candidates, they will be pressured to do so.
This is like those haredim in Israel who want to fully occupy Samara and Judea … but also to be exempt from conscription—Grant me exclusion from the army, Yahweh says so; you do the heavy work, I reap the benefits!
I don't understand why churches or any religious organizations are tax exempt. I don't have a religion, and I, and others like me, pay their share of public amenities like utilities.
That's one issue.
Now there's a way to funnel monies thru churches to candidates. It will be easy to fund campaigns secretly, outside of contribution laws. Count on it.
BTW, the New Yorker article linked here is paywalled.
True! SCOTUS has perviously declared money is equivalent to speech, especially by corporations. It is an extremely small step to include Churches under that umbrella.
Another issue is that if religious organizations are allowed to lobby directly for political candidates the next step is to declare anyone in their congregation who does not support that candidate is not following their religion, and shouldn't be a member of that congregation.
The First Amendment went from protecting you from gov overreach to the government favoring one religion over the rest. Thank The Heritage Foundation for creating this twisted Constitutional doctrine.
I said this on another site: This might backfire on the far right, even evangelicals. Black churches will be free to endorse whomever they want. Pope Leo might go all out on the rad-trads who support POS, and encourage the bishops to start endorsing Catholics and others who actually believe Matthew 25 and follow it. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops might start endorsing those people as well. Most religious people aren't MAGA evangelicals, or rad-trad christians (small c deliberate), and actually believe in real Christian beliefs.
This is going to backfire for churches, at least the ones who support it. At the same time, it will harden the resolve of the ones who have been overtly political for years now. Writ large, organized religions have been losing followers for years, and a big reason is due to preaching politics from the pulpit. It simply is not the reason most people go to church, and I believe most still go for reasons of fellowship and self-improvement.
I will be interested to see what happens among churches who decide not to take advantage of this. We are likely to see more “sorting” of congregants. People who have been hanging on in radical congregations might feel forced to change to one that decides to be apolitical, or is already. Eventually, we will see congregations that are indistinguishable from Proud Boys meetings.
This is a minority less than the 40%-ish number who still support Trump.
Congregations indistinguishable from Proud Boys meetings... Just once I want to start my day with good news but nope, welcome to hell.
Come skating at the new Hell Rink.
Churches have been making similar demands for decades.
Obamacare requires insurers to cover birth control, except for employers with a religious objection to birth control. Notre Dame refused to sign a piece of paper stating it had a religious objection, then sued.
After losing, and I assume being laughed at by clerks for the judges, they appealed to SCOTUS which sent the case back to the appellate court for reconsideration in light of the odious Hobby Lobby case. The outrage on campus forced the university to withdraw its objection and provide standard Obamacare coverage.
One of the leaders in the fight for public money for religious schools is at the ND Law School. Also, that's where John Roberts ally Amy Coney Barrett taught.
Infuriating: “Religious freedom” seems to define “religion” as if its only concerns are homophobia, white skin color and a dim view of women. Not certain Jesus would agree … especially since antisemitism is also in the recipe.
Jesus Christ
Trump looks weirder than normal in that photo. Can't believe he allowed that photo to be taken!
The Extremes base their religious "liberty" rulings on lies: the coach was not "quietly praying by himself" and the website maker had no standing so the ACTUAL issue could be ignored--could she be required to deal with same sex couples if they accepted every stricture and scripture she wanted to stick in the site. Instead the court pompously said you can't force people to create things contrary to their religious beliefs, which comes under the heading of DUH. Anyone ever claimed a hijab maker could be forced to sell rosaries? With no actual FACTS before the court, it just slip slid into the idea that for religious folks, discrimination against folks for their STATUS is likely to be OK so long as creativity is somehow involved.
And now a lower court is following its lead. A new way to turn us into a theocracy. Just bring a complaint for that doing anything--maybe murder on Fifth Avenue--with a "religious" basis is cool, and this DOJ will just reach a settlement that says "oh, you're right, the victim might be a Muslim and thus that murder must have been because his presence offended the sincere religious belief of the killer.
That "one day" recommendation for violation of civil rights of Briona shows the pattern. Apparently per DOJ unless you actually shoot someone you can't violate their civil rights. If the judge ignores the recommendation and gives a serious sentence, on appeal all the shooter has to say is that he had a "sincere religious belief" that it was necessary to shoot into the house with no warning and bingo. Case dismissed.
Churches should be wary of this change in policy. It likely means that not only will they not lose tax-exempt status for publicly supporting political candidates, they will be pressured to do so.
White Supremacy is NOT a religion!
This is like those haredim in Israel who want to fully occupy Samara and Judea … but also to be exempt from conscription—Grant me exclusion from the army, Yahweh says so; you do the heavy work, I reap the benefits!
Few will come right out and say it. All are dancing around it. I researched why that is. I came up with a lack of transparency fueling an inferno. The truth is coming out. Exactly when remains to be seen, but it is coming. https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/a-properly-probative-pedophile-president?r=3m1bs