Most Americans don’t understand the ramifications of repeal. To avoid doing stupid but popular shit is supposed to be why we have representatives.
Muslims could then gain some power? Heck, I wonder why they do not worry about satanists. I still remember how in Phoenix the lawmakers thought that starting sessions with prayers was not a problem… until the Satanists noted that they had a right then to also get in the rotation. The Arizona lawmakers ended the prayer rule to prevent them from praying in the city councils.
And now I wonder if the realization that very despised groups will benefit was one reason some right wing posters in the past had criticized the fact that some humanist/atheist groups also got the tax exempt deal. I think some on the right do know the unintended consequences and attempt to minimize the increased influence that some groups will get if the rules are changed.
This isn’t a bad point. If the proverbial “they” wanna change the law to screw around, then its going to work both ways.
I thought everyone realized that the god of the OT is a Republican while the god of the NT(or at least his representative on earth) is a Democrat. The curious thing is that worshipers of the NT generally vote Republican while the people of the Book generally vote Democratic. Schizophrenia anyone?
I look forward to the negotiations towards forming a coalition between the Catholic Party and the Mormon Alliance. Unitarians, Episcopalians and Methodists will likely caucus together. Numerically, the Baptists might be expected to hold a dominant position, but are unlikely to form a unified front without bloodshed.
Pretty sure I can figure out where Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, and the Sierra Club will line up on the issue of Trump.
To me this would be a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
But even if it does get passed, I don’t think the right realizes all the ramifications…
You’re right about the RCC’s focus. Once the right is able to ban abortion in some shape or form they’ll be making poverty easily the biggest issue of the RCC. And I don’t think the current administration nor Congress are going to do anything about it (I’m expecting the income divide to grow even more).
Another repercussion will be the emergence of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a legitimate church. I’m sure they’ll be quite active politically.
That’s the theory. I’m talking about the practice.
Why?
No, it isn’t. Its easier to make a case that the JA itself violates the 1st Amendment by stifling speech. Churches in the USA run the political spectrum. Let em speak.
For one thing, who decides what constitutes a church? By determining who qualifies as a church (and thus getting a tax advantage) they are establishing or de-establishing a church.
Secondly, why should churches be the only ones getting that tax break? Why aren’t all the other 501(c)3 orgs getting the same treatment as well? It’s blatantly obvious what the intent of repealing the JA is.
Political think tanks also qualify as 501c3s. They are allowed to engage in some political activity. As are organizations that advocate for animals and kids.
Now I’m confused. Are in favor of or against lifting the ban on political speech?
As I noted in the other thread on this, the law is not based on whether something is a Church or not. It’s about being a non-profit group just as you would like.
Actually, it was post #47 of this thread.
don’t most church goers already know their church’s stance on social issues such as abortion and transgender " rights " and gay marriage?
Don’t they also know the candidates’ stance on these issues as well ?
I dunno, I had the pope bless our gay wedding. Got the proclamation hanging up in our living room. What’s their stance now?
Whose Luci…?
Your Luci.
elucidator
But, given the negative stigma of being known as (or believed to be) a Satan worshiper, would the Satanists have to endorse candidates that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum with? I mean, if a Satanist endorsed a liberal, that’s just widening the split between liberals and conservatives. But if they endorsed the conservative, could that foment enough confusion and indecision on the Right?
You seem to me to essentially be saying, “I don’t care how it affects other churches, as long as Muslims don’t get any positive outcome.”
Am I right?
Yes, abortion is a big issue for the Roman Catholic Church, but Francis isn’t as idiotic as the plurality of the American electorate, and knows perfectly well that Trump doesn’t give a damn about abortion. That issue is already taken away, and what’s left? Social justice, capital punishment, war… It’s a pretty solidly anti-Republican platform.
Nope, just part of the standard, fact-free conservative ‘liberals are the devil’ argument.
Psst…don’t tell him there are many Christian and atheist/agnostic liberals; it’ll only mess with his world view until he comes up with some other bullshit argument to support his unsupportable point.