New EO - Are you F*!*4 kidding me?

a reply to: deadlyhope

Even the Johnson Amendment has ups and downs... but it should hold firm that the ties of campaigns and these organizations should be removed 100%.

I am in support of moving the IRS to combat these influences in U.S. government, once the tax brackets are removed to support a consumption tax system... at least until the influence of these entities within political influence is removed.

I'd like to save my money and get my business going, but the 50% tax premiums before I even buy required insurances is just too much to pay for. All of this money is going to feed 501c3 influence, commercial interests, and economical influence. If you all want to pay for these laws and rules that surround organizations, then please do so without my obligated expense.

If it's a tax system it must be... then 501c3 non profits should only be tax exempt when losses are reported. If profits beyond a set level are breached, then corporate tax code kicks in. It's only fair... too many churches, and even the current president, gain their wealth through government tax code loop hole advantages.

I doubt Trump was spurred to make this EO on any religious grounds, it's just something he can pull off that his party is in favor of and classify as a "win". I don't think it goes any deeper than that.

That being said, it'll be funny when a Satanist backed candidate gives these good ol' boys a run for their money. Its only a matter of time now that the floodgates to mix government and religion are open.

The EO is more symbolic than anything. No laws are changed.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Just keep an eye out for any court cases that will challenge this. After doing a little research, here are some excerpts about this from the official statement by the ACLU's Union Executive Director, Anthony D. Romero:

“Today’s executive order signing was an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome. After careful review of the order’s text we have determined that the order does not meaningfully alter the ability of religious institutions or individuals to intervene in the political process. The order portends but does not yet do harm to the provision of reproductive health services.

“President Trump’s prior assertion that he wished to ‘totally destroy’ the Johnson Amendment with this order has proven to be a textbook case of ‘fake news.’

“What President Trump did today was merely provide a faux sop to religious conservatives and kick the can down the road on religious exemptions on reproductive health care services.

ACLU Statement on So-Called ‘Religious Freedom’ Executive Order

So the ACLU isn't intending to challenge this in court yet because they literally think it's a toothless photo op. But I did find another group that's challenging this executive order in court (the "Freedom From Religion Foundation). Their official statement about it is at this link:

FFRF sues Trump over church politicking

Churches and religious groups have been donating to senators and campaigns for years.

Top Senate Recipients Funded

Ted Cruz $229,902
Bernard Sanders $195,353
Marco Rubio $71,043
Elizabeth Warren $40,221
Tim Kaine $23,350
Tom Cotton $21,620
Rand Paul $17,868
Claire McCaskill $17,800
Sherrod Brown $17,729
Tammy Baldwin $16,704

Contributions shown for the last six years of available data, Nov 29, 2010 - Nov 28, 2016, including contributions to presidential campaigns.

maplight.org...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I like the remark by the ACLU that it is textbook fake news, as if President Trump was a journalist or news organization. So much for textbook.

I also agree, politicians shouldn't be taking money or even advice/funding from religious organisations of any sorts.

New EO - Are you F*!*4 kidding me?

Seriously ?

Afraid the christian/muslim,WHATEVER might rub off ?

Back to the book burning.

a reply to: neo96

Are you suggesting special interest groups don't exist?

Or are you suggesting that politicians cannot be swayed?

What are you suggesting anyways?

I think there is a need to accept the reality of how things really are, separating religion and politics is just words, and the range of religious belief in politicians is from the sublime to the ridiculousness of fanaticism, while political order is your order regardless of what you think.

While there is a whip system in the US, it is far more watered down than in the UK parliament.

a reply to: smurfy

Yeah but there's a big difference between 1) individuals having religious beliefs and 2) mega churches, mega mosques, and mega synagogues being able to put out ads for specific politicians. Imagine entire denominations officially endorsing a candidate.

If you think the 2016 American Presidential cycle was bitter, just imagine if the "United Church of Christ" & denomination's leadership officially said "any Christians who don't vote for Democrats in 2018 are going to Hell." After all, ex-Pres Obama was a longtime member there. And Hillary's a member of the United Methodist Church, so would they officially do the same thing? Would Republicans counter with a similar official "us or Hell" endorsement from the Catholics or Southern Baptists (even though John Kerry is a Catholic)? Would this spark more Christian vs Christian violence?

Living in the South, I know that many religious institutions here unofficially do this anyway. But this involves the tax exempt status of those institutions. They can be as open as they want to be if they're willing to lose their tax exempt status. But if they're not willing to lose their tax exempt status, they need to stay out of govt affairs.

The only way you will ever truly separate church and state is to allow only atheists to vote. Why do you think politicians have always wooed the evangical crowd? And now the Lesft wooing the Muslim contingents? As long as there are religions, and people worshipping those religions participate in selecting political winners and losers, there cannot be separation of church and state. What, you think just because it's not preached from the pulpit, church leaders never shate their feelings with their flocks? Puhleeeze...

Sorry to say but religion has always been part of our voting process. People go to church each sunday. they talk about their beliefs and polotics too.

originally posted by: underwerks


That being said, it'll be funny when a Satanist backed candidate gives these good ol' boys a run for their money. Its only a matter of time now that the floodgates to mix government and religion are open.

Can see a calling for changes within the EO then.

And people scoffed & laughed when the rest of us pointed out Betsy DeVos' Dominionism angle.

It doesn't take much to get the ball rolling down the hill. Who TF is laughing now?

I agree with the separation of church and state, especially in political matters. There should be a respect between these.

You have NO obligation to respect anyone's ANY speech.

It's a good idea to respect everyone's RIGHT to free speech, but the respect towards the context is freely determinable by the individual, and this can't lawfully ever change (without the individual's consent).

originally posted by: deadlyhope
This gem came out within the last few days....

Sec. 2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.

Meaning that religious institutions, such as the LDS cult I grew up in, seem free to participate in politics.

How is this progress?!!?

Separation of church and state should, in my opinion, also mean separation of church and politics.

Religions and non-profits have no place in politics. Politics is about greedy, pompous, rich men screwing over the average person - Religions and charities and the like should at least pretend they are not a part of this game.

Sigh.

What do you people think?

Progress? Anti-progress?

What does this have to do with "progress?"

Moreover, what are you "progressing" towards?

Got news for you, but "progress," i.e. science, has killed far more people than all religions combined, and is just as much a cult as any religion.

But "follow the science." No profits there, right? How much did big pharma make this past year?