Trump: Abolishing the Johnson Amendment

[anatess2]

This is something that Trump campaigned on that I'm not sold on.

Yes, I have no objection over Churches per se endorsing Presidential Candidates.  But even with the Johnson law, that has not stopped Reverends on both sides of the aisle from political activism outside of the pulpit.  What it does stop, though, is money buying elections.  Abolishing the Johnson Amendment does not just affect Churches.  It also affects Unions.

So, what am I missing?

 

[Guest Godless]

I don't think you're missing anything. Trump used this campaign promise to boost his status with Evangelicals, and we've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that he's a man of his word (for better or worse).

Interestingly, President Johnson passed this amendment in response to communist accusations from a non-religious non-profit organization. Since churches enjoy 501(c)(3) status, it applied to them as well, and that's where all of the focus has been. It's turned into a classic Church/State vs. Freedom of Speech debate. Trump's decision to abolish the amendment likely won't be a popular one (there are plenty of religious people in both parties who respect Church/State separation), and I don't think he can actually pull it off without Congress.

[Guest Godless]

40 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What it does stop, though, is money buying elections.

Based on the little bit I've read about the issue, it seems that many Republicans fully support keeping non-profit money out of politics while expanding their ability to have a voice in the political process. Basically, they want non-profits to be able to take sides in elections, but not with their wallets.

[anatess2]

44 minutes ago, Godless said:

I don't think you're missing anything. Trump used this campaign promise to boost his status with Evangelicals, and we've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that he's a man of his word (for better or worse).

I don't agree with this statement because if there's one thing we learned about this election cycle, Trump does not operate like any other politician that ever ran for public office in recent memory.  He either believes in something or he doesn't or he can be persuaded.  He doesn't change those positions for votes.  He simply expects you to agree with him because it makes sense to him or disagree with him which he doesn't really care if you do, he just doubles down on it because he just expects you to eventually see it his way.  Those he can be persuaded on, he tells you he changed (or may change) his mind on.

The Johnson Amendment was not something a large swath of Evangelicals was pushing to be abolished or even cared about.  It wasn't on anybody's radar.  The majority of Evangelicals had 3 things as their topmost issue - Court Appointments especially the Supreme Court (sanctity of life, sanctity of traditional marriage, religious liberty in commerce, etc), Islamic Terrorism, Economy.  If Trump wanted to boost his status with Evangelicals, he had much better political capital expressing support for traditional marriage.  Which he didn't.  Because he has no problem with gay marriage and he has no problem saying so to the Evangelicals although he promised them Constitutionalists on the courts.

The Johnson Amendment as he stated was something Trump read about in passing, decided he didn't much like it, so decided to make an issue out of it (where there was none).

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I hate that the whole thing is being framed in religious terms, when religion really has very little to do with it.  The underlying principle seems clear enough:  if you want to endorse candidates, set yourself up as a 527 and tell us where your money is coming from.  If you'd rather keep your donor lists private, you can be a 501(c)(3)--but limit your campaigning, and make sure you're endorsing ideas rather than people.

[Guest]

On 2/3/2017 at 11:43 AM, anatess2 said:

This is something that Trump campaigned on that I'm not sold on.

Yes, I have no objection over Churches per se endorsing Presidential Candidates.  But even with the Johnson law, that has not stopped Reverends on both sides of the aisle from political activism outside of the pulpit.  What it does stop, though, is money buying elections.  Abolishing the Johnson Amendment does not just affect Churches.  It also affects Unions.

So, what am I missing?

 

What you're missing is that it is almost NEVER actually enforced among any liberal organizations -- especially unions.  But it IS enforced among conservative organizations.

[prisonchaplain]

I heard Candidate Trump speak on this to a group of ministers. He basically said that it was odd that the individual walking along the street had more right to speak his opinion than ministers do. Ministers must legally avoid appearing to endorse a political candidate, in their role as minister, for fear of the IRS coming after his church. The guy walking on the sidewalk gets to say whatever he wants.  And @Carborendum articulated well the feeling of many that the enforcement gets applied unevenly.  In all the discussions I've been in about church and politics, the issue was never about the church funding political campaigns. It was always that we must be careful not to publically endorse a candidate in a way that appears to carry the backing of the church.  Most Americans accept these rules, but I think the President has a point.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What you're missing is that it is almost NEVER actually enforced among any liberal organizations -- especially unions.  But it IS enforced among conservative organizations.

I'm not sure how aggressively it is enforced, actually.  What I think happens more often is that conservatives, being who they are, voluntarily observe the strictures them law places upon them; and union goons, being who they are--don't.

[Blackmarch]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What you're missing is that it is almost NEVER actually enforced among any liberal organizations -- especially unions.  But it IS enforced among conservative organizations.

when one of the tenets of the US majority religion is turn the other cheek, there are going to be less christians trying to enforce the law for every percieved jot and tittle missed than the vice versa. Secondly if one has found the spirit of christ they are going to be more forgiving in general. not saying that this is a big reason... just that before the game starts it's already predisposd towards being unbalanced.

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I'm not sure how aggressively it is enforced, actually.  What I think happens more often is that conservatives, being who they are, voluntarily observe the strictures them law places upon them; and union goons, being who they are--don't.

The TEA Party IRS crackdown may be predictive of what would happen if conservatives decide to test the legal boundaries.

[Mike]

17 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I heard Candidate Trump speak on this to a group of ministers. He basically said that it was odd that the individual walking along the street had more right to speak his opinion than ministers do. Ministers must legally avoid appearing to endorse a political candidate, in their role as minister, for fear of the IRS coming after his church. The guy walking on the sidewalk gets to say whatever he wants.  And @Carborendum articulated well the feeling of many that the enforcement gets applied unevenly.  In all the discussions I've been in about church and politics, the issue was never about the church funding political campaigns. It was always that we must be careful not to publically endorse a candidate in a way that appears to carry the backing of the church.  Most Americans accept these rules, but I think the President has a point.

Without addressing the issue of enforcement, I would disagree with Candidate Trump. I might not feel that way if I believed the man on the street could walk up to any pulpit and express his preference for a political candidate. Any minister *can* speak his or her opinion in the same venues and manner as the man on the street can as far as I have observed. But when the minister does it from the pulpit then I think it pollutes the spiritual aspect of the church. My observations in LDS priesthood meetings and Sunday School classes (as well as meetings I have witnessed in other denominations' meetings) lead me to hold this opinion. So, I think the President has no point, but that he does have a political objective.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Mike

[anatess2]

50 minutes ago, Mike said:

Without addressing the issue of enforcement, I would disagree with Candidate Trump. I might not feel that way if I believed the man on the street could walk up to any pulpit and express his preference for a political candidate. Any minister *can* speak his or her opinion in the same venues and manner as the man on the street can as far as I have observed. But when the minister does it from the pulpit then I think it pollutes the spiritual aspect of the church. My observations in LDS priesthood meetings and Sunday School classes (as well as meetings I have witnessed in other denominations' meetings) lead me to hold this opinion. So, I think the President has no point, but that he does have a political objective.

I don't know... for a while there, when we were still LDS.net we were not allowed to talk about any political candidate in the campaign season because the More Good Foundation did not want to lose their tax-exempt status.  We sure were not speaking at any pulpit...

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Without addressing the issue of enforcement, I would disagree with Candidate Trump. I might not feel that way if I believed the man on the street could walk up to any pulpit and express his preference for a political candidate. Any minister *can* speak his or her opinion in the same venues and manner as the man on the street can as far as I have observed. But when the minister does it from the pulpit then I think it pollutes the spiritual aspect of the church. My observations in LDS priesthood meetings and Sunday School classes (as well as meetings I have witnessed in other denominations' meetings) lead me to hold this opinion. So, I think the President has no point, but that he does have a political objective.

Mike, I mostly agree with you, as a matter of spirituality. However, Caesar shouldn't get to make that call. 

[Mike]

31 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Mike, I mostly agree with you, as a matter of spirituality. However, Caesar shouldn't get to make that call. 

Hmmm. That's something of a red herring for me. But I'll take your (mostly) agreement with me and enjoy it because the matter of spirituality seems like the larger issue that ought to concern you and me.

However, talk with me some more about the comparison between the minister (a citizen) and the man on the street (a citizen). I'm thinking that if you show me a man (minister) who wants to talk politics from "his" pulpit or dressed as a minister or with his title alongside his name, and I'll show you a man who wants his opinion to carry more weight than the citizen on the street. (It just occurred to me that my remark could be taken personally. Please please don't take it that way because it isn't intended that way).

Edited February 7, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

56 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't know... for a while there, when we were still LDS.net we were not allowed to talk about any political candidate in the campaign season because the More Good Foundation did not want to lose their tax-exempt status.  We sure were not speaking at any pulpit...

True, but that isn't the same thing as the thing I'm trying to talk about.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Mike

[anatess2]

44 minutes ago, Mike said:

True, but that isn't the same thing as the thing I'm trying to talk about.

I guess I didn't understand what you're talking about!  Sorry! 

Edited February 7, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I guess I didn't understand what you're talking about!  Sorry! 

That must be why you (in your avatar) seem to be pulling your hair out.  Hahahaha, friends.

 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

That must be why you (in your avatar) seem to be pulling your hair out.  Hahahaha, friends.

 

Ohmygoodness, yes!  Hah hah.

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Hmmm. That's something of a red herring for me. But I'll take your (mostly) agreement with me and enjoy it because the matter of spirituality seems like the larger issue that ought to concern you and me.

However, talk with me some more about the comparison between the minister (a citizen) and the man on the street (a citizen). I'm thinking that if you show me a man (minister) who wants to talk politics from "his" pulpit or dressed as a minister or with his title alongside his name, and I'll show you a man who wants his opinion to carry more weight than the citizen on the street. (It just occurred to me that my remark could be taken personally. Please please don't take it that way because it isn't intended that way).

First, I'm all for celebrating agreements when they happen.  To clarify further, I would not support a political party that had a religious element to its foundation--such as Christian-Democrats/Republicans/Libertarians, etc.  That would be base, foolish, and a great diminishing of our real power--which is spiritual.

On the other hand, everyone wants as much influence they can get, if they believe in a cause.  So, if a minister says to his congregation, "Abortion is a terrible sin. Hillary Clinton is a pro-abortion extremist, who has promised to appoint pro-abortion judges.  Therefore, I'm letting the church know that I endorse Donald Trump.  Further, the board has met and agreed that our congregation is officially endorsing him for President," imho, no matter how unwise that might be, for however many reason (yes, I believe those reasons are legion), it's my view that the IRS should not be able to go after the minister, or his church.  Our First Freedom was intended to protect us from government, not government from us.

BTW, I seldom hear criticism of religious action during the Civil Rights era, yet I have to believe that some spiritual leaders named opponents and allies of Dr. King's great call to a color blind society.

[Mike]

18 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

On the other hand, everyone wants as much influence they can get, if they believe in a cause.  So, if a minister says to his congregation, "Abortion is a terrible sin. Hillary Clinton is a pro-abortion extremist, who has promised to appoint pro-abortion judges.  Therefore, I'm letting the church know that I endorse Donald Trump.  Further, the board has met and agreed that our congregation is officially endorsing him for President," imho, no matter how unwise that might be, for however many reason (yes, I believe those reasons are legion), it's my view that the IRS should not be able to go after the minister, or his church.  Our First Freedom was intended to protect us from government, not government from us.

BTW, I seldom hear criticism of religious action during the Civil Rights era, yet I have to believe that some spiritual leaders named opponents and allies of Dr. King's great call to a color blind society.

Yes, it is indeed human nature to want as much influence as possible. My comparison of the hypothetical minister and man on the street was about the influence of an expressed idea, opinion, viewpoint etc. based upon its merits as opposed to being based upon the perceived reputation or influence (or lack thereof) of the man holding the idea. I see that I needn't belabor the reasons since you already believe them. I'll leave your other views about the taxation for another time. 

Why do you suppose you seldom hear criticism of religious action during the Civil Rights era? 

 

 

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

 

Why do you suppose you seldom hear criticism of religious action during the Civil Rights era? 

 

 

Quite frankly, the vast majority of media and academic power players endorse what happened, and most conservatives today concur.  On the other hand, those same power leaders most adamantly do not support the pro-life cause, nor traditional marriage, nor the right of religious individuals and companies to conscientiously object from supporting LGBT marriage or abortion.  You've probably seen this complaint here before, but liberals celebrate when individuals or companies refuse service to Trump supporters, but rent their clothes and cast ashes about when a Christian of any stripe refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for same-sex weddings.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Quite frankly, the vast majority of media and academic power players endorse what happened, and most conservatives today concur.  On the other hand, those same power leaders most adamantly do not support the pro-life cause, nor traditional marriage, nor the right of religious individuals and companies to conscientiously object from supporting LGBT marriage or abortion.  You've probably seen this complaint here before, but liberals celebrate when individuals or companies refuse service to Trump supporters, but rent their clothes and cast ashes about when a Christian of any stripe refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for same-sex weddings.

@Mike, this kinda brings two threads together into one discussion - the CNN narrative issue we were talking about in another thread, and this one. 

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Yes, it is indeed human nature to want as much influence as possible. My comparison of the hypothetical minister and man on the street was about the influence of an expressed idea, opinion, viewpoint etc. based upon its merits as opposed to being based upon the perceived reputation or influence (or lack thereof) of the man holding the idea. I see that I needn't belabor the reasons since you already believe them. I'll leave your other views about the taxation for another time. 

 

For my part, I don't particularly care about the amount of influence--even political influence--that ecclesiastical leaders wield within their organizations.  In my book private associations are free to give influence within their communities to individual members/leaders, and also free to revoke that influence, with no accountability to the outside world.  If Thomas Monson had gotten up in the last General Conference and pronounced that it was the word and will of the Lord that we all vote for Donald Trump--as Mormons, we might have some long and ugly discussions about a prophet's role in electoral politics.  But a Mormon family squabble is hardly the federal government's business.

The problem I see, is when ecclesiastical leaders try to project their clout outside of the sphere of people who have voluntarily affiliated with that group by essentially funneling dark money for the benefit of a secular political candidate. 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Mike]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

@Mike, this kinda brings two threads together into one discussion - the CNN narrative issue we were talking about in another thread, and this one. 

Tell me what you mean, and I'll try to stay with your narrative. 

[Mike]

14 hours ago, Mike said:

Why do you suppose you seldom hear criticism of religious action during the Civil Rights era? 

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Quite frankly, the vast majority of media and academic power players endorse what happened, and most conservatives today concur.  On the other hand, those same power leaders most adamantly do not support the pro-life cause, nor traditional marriage, nor the right of religious individuals and companies to conscientiously object from supporting LGBT marriage or abortion.  You've probably seen this complaint here before, but liberals celebrate when individuals or companies refuse service to Trump supporters, but rent their clothes and cast ashes about when a Christian of any stripe refuses to bake a cake or arrange flowers for same-sex weddings.

Which, it seems to me, doesn't really go toward answering my question. But I suppose "why" questions seldom have satisfactory answers. Since my childhood the overall answers have seemed to run along the lines of "that's just the way it is". 

As I read your response, however, it also occurred to me that somewhere out there a liberal is probably lamenting what she sees as conservatives celebrating when individuals or companies refuse service to a gay person but rent their clothes and cast ashes about when someone refuses service to a Trump supporter.  Right? And so it goes, and here we are perhaps always blaming the other guy for "starting it first" just like we did when we were children. Or were we just acting like adults?