Should the Johnson Amendment (forbids religions and charities from endorsing candidates) be repealed?

[emeliza]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Abuse or not, removing or restricting tax-exampt status of religions would in effect throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Church of Jesus Christ benefits society in countless ways that justify its tax exemption; so do other faith groups. Charities too.

I don't disagree that our church benefits others greatly and possibly due to the exempt status.  

I just believe more organizations abuse the exemption.  

 

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Separation of Church and State was designed to protect Churches from government, not government from Churches.
That is why it says :
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Wouldn't you say that the Johnson law is a law respecting an establishment of religion AND abridging the freedom of speech of that religious group?
 

It might have originally been for that reason, but I think nowadays it works in both favors and should continue to do so.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I don't think that's a good gauge. The church tends to act only when it has a significant influence. Hence, it gets involved in SSM in Hawaii and California, and gets involved in assisted suicide and marijuana in states that border Utah, but when those same issues are voted on in eastern states nothing is said. To my knowledge, the church has never taken a position on political issues here in Ohio.

So, even if laws don't prohibit the church from endorsing candidates in other countries, I would be surprised if the church did so because it lacks significant influence in those countries (at least ones of significance; sorry American Samoa). 

The church could easily endorse candidates over the pulpit and the amount of influence in the country wouldn't matter.  If the church was only trying to influence its members to vote a certain way, the number of members in a country would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, emeliza said:

At a personal level or amount of money the church brings maybe, but not on a national level.  Churches being involved directly in politics would have a bigger impact.

I'm speaking about impact on the LDS church. If the amendment were repealed, I doubt the church would do much (if any) lobbying or endorsing - at least on issues that it doesn't already do so. Thus, the "gain" to the church from repeal is rather minimal. On the other hand, there is some risk of loss of tithing if itemized deductions are capped. In theory there shouldn't be a reduction, but in practice there would be.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I don't think that's a good gauge. The church tends to act only when it has a significant influence. Hence, it gets involved in SSM in Hawaii and California, and gets involved in assisted suicide and marijuana in states that border Utah, but when those same issues are voted on in eastern states nothing is said. To my knowledge, the church has never taken a position on political issues here in Ohio.

So, even if laws don't prohibit the church from endorsing candidates in other countries, I would be surprised if the church did so because it lacks significant influence in those countries (at least ones of significance; sorry American Samoa). 

You're talking here about campaigns that take a significent investment of monetary and human resources. Publicly endorsing or opposing a political candidate does not cost any money to speak of. Lack of significant influence is not the reason the Church avoids engagement in partisan politics.

[emeliza]

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

I'm speaking about impact on the LDS church. If the amendment were repealed, I doubt the church would do much (if any) lobbying or endorsing - at least on issues that it doesn't already do so. Thus, the "gain" to the church from repeal is rather minimal. On the other hand, there is some risk of loss of tithing if itemized deductions are capped. In theory there shouldn't be a reduction, but in practice there would be.

Oh, I think we would be surprised by the lobbying the church might do.  

But as I have said before, my answers are based more nationally and less exclusively to how our church would handle things.

[Buckeye]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There are already a lot of groups I find unpalatable that influence politics to the extent that they can. They have a First Amendment right to do so, one that, in theory, should apply to churches as well. This is America, after all.

Sure. My point is just that, without the Johnson Amendment, theses "unpalatable" groups would go even further and that would lead to stronger cries to drop all tax exemptions for all churches. You and I may be able to easily distinguish between the LDS Church and the fringe, but lots of young adults who've never had much interest in religion would tend to think of faith groups homogeneously. 

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church could easily endorse candidates over the pulpit and the amount of influence in the country wouldn't matter.  If the church was only trying to influence its members to vote a certain way, the number of members in a country would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?

Okay, so why doesn't the church take the same stands on issues in New York, Virginia, and Ohio, as it does in Utah, Arizona and California? 

I agree that the church could take positions and get whatever influence it can, however minimal that may be. But remember there is an administrative cost to taking any action. In order for the church to take position on, say, the presidential candidates in Panama, the church would have to care enough about that issue to use valuable time in COB meetings of the 70 and 12. I don't see that happening.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Sky said:

According to reports that I have read, Trump is preparing a Religious Freedom Executive Order targeting LGBT people.  

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/02/trumps-religious-freedom-executive-order-worse-feared/

...This makes me nervous!  

Expect more resistance and civil disobedience.  Perhaps unlike anything since the 1960's. 

The day I go to church and start being advised as to which candidate to support is the day I stop going ever again!  

I don't think you need have much fear of that from going to an LDS meeting.

On the other hand, imagine an extreme situation: What if a modern-day Liburn W. Boggs were to arise and start advocating the extermination or removal of Mormons? Wouldn't you expect the Church to oppose such a candidate?

By the way, I clicked on your link above. It takes me to a report on a highly biased web site going off a leaked document that contradicts official White House statements. I think hand wringing at this point is a bit premature.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[emeliza]

Just now, Buckeye said:

Okay, so why doesn't the church take the same stands on issues in New York, Virginia, and Ohio, as it does in Utah, Arizona and California? 

Possibilities include:

1.  Less members/less influence

2. Less attention paid to the east coast states since less members and the leadership doesn't live there

I am sure there are other possibilities.

[Buckeye]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're talking here about campaigns that take a significent investment of monetary and human resources. Publicly endorsing or opposing a political candidate does not cost any money to speak of. Lack of significant influence is not the reason the Church avoids engagement in partisan politics.

I disagree. While it costs very little to actually issue a statement, it costs quite a lot for church leaders to learn of the candidates and agree on a candidate to support. Costs in time and resources (that could be spent on temples and missionary work), as well as political capital within the church governing bodies that would get spent in trying to get the leaders to agree. There's also the cost of alienating some members whose politics differ from the church's chosen candidate. So there is quite a lot of cost to make an any endorsement. And that cost has to be weighed about the potential gains. 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Buckeye

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Okay, so why doesn't the church take the same stands on issues in New York, Virginia, and Ohio, as it does in Utah, Arizona and California? 

I agree that the church could take positions and get whatever influence it can, however minimal that may be. But remember there is an administrative cost to taking any action. In order for the church to take position on, say, the presidential candidates in Panama, the church would have to care enough about that issue to use valuable time in COB meetings of the 70 and 12. I don't see that happening.

I don't know.  The only time i've ever heard one of the apostles talk about it (and i can't even remember which one it was) they said that God told them they needed to do what they did in California during Prop. 8 but that they didn't need to do the same things in other states.

If the issue is a moral one (and it were legal for the church to do so) i'm not sure that 'it would waste time' is a good reason for why they wouldn't bother giving the members counsel in a specific country.

You might be right, i'm just not seeing that it's a given.

[Buckeye]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think you need have much fear of that from going to an LDS meeting.

On the other hand, imagine an extreme situation: What if a modern-day Liburn W. Boggs were to arise and start advocating the extermination or removal of Mormons? Wouldn't you expect the Church to oppose such a candidate?

 

If the candidate is talking about exterminating Mormons then, yes, of course. The LDS church will always speak in its own defense. 

Now, if the talk is about exterminating Jews or Muslims or other undesirables, I'm not nearly as confident. We didn't speak against oppression of Jews in WWII until it was too late. And our recent statements about Muslim-targeted discrimination have been pretty tepid. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Sure. My point is just that, without the Johnson Amendment, theses "unpalatable" groups would go even further and that would lead to stronger cries to drop all tax exemptions for all churches. You and I may be able to easily distinguish between the LDS Church and the fringe, but lots of young adults who've never had much interest in religion would tend to think of faith groups homogeneously. 

The nation has survived the influence of the unpalatable groups thus far; the influence of a few extremist religious groups doesn't worry me all that much.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, emeliza said:

Possibilities include:

1.  Less members/less influence

2. Less attention paid to the east coast states since less members and the leadership doesn't live there

I am sure there are other possibilities.

I have heard some speculate (and that's all it is as far as i know) that it was necessary for the USA (and the world, i suppose) to know God's thoughts on the matter of SSM, so that there could be no uncertainty of it and no denying it.  That was the purpose of the church being involved in Prop. 8.  Once that was accomplished, fighting SSM in each state became unnecessary.

 

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I don't know.  The only time i've ever heard one of the apostles talk about it (and i can't even remember which one it was) they said that God told them they needed to do what they did in California during Prop. 8 but that they didn't need to do the same things in other states.

If the issue is a moral one (and it were legal for the church to do so) i'm not sure that 'it would waste time' is a good reason for why they wouldn't bother giving the members counsel in a specific country.

You might be right, i'm just not seeing that it's a given.

It's not that it's a "waste" of time, but that time is a valuable resource and the leaders choose to spend it on other more pressing matters. The calculation goes like this: "We can spend time on normal church efforts (think 4-fold mission) or we can spend time speaking out against SSM." In that consideration, it matters quite a lot whether speaking out will do any good. As a rational actor, I'm not at all surprised that the church would speak out in areas where its voice could make the difference (precisely what happened in California) and not speak in areas where it has no power (e.g., Ohio). 

There's literally millions of issues and candidates worldwide that the church take a position on. But there's not time and resources to do so. The church is an efficient and rational actor if there ever was one.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

If the candidate is talking about exterminating Mormons then, yes, of course. The LDS church will always speak in its own defense. 

Now, if the talk is about exterminating Jews or Muslims or other undesirables, I'm not nearly as confident. We didn't speak against oppression of Jews in WWII until it was too late. And our recent statements about Muslim-targeted discrimination have been pretty tepid. 

The recent statements have spoken to broad principles that have a moral foundation. If you're expecting the Church to go after the Trump administration directly, I think you are on shaky ground, as much of the expressed opposition is very debatable. And that would get into partisan politics, which the Church very studiously avoids.

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have heard some speculate (and that's all it is as far as i know) that it was necessary for the USA (and the world, i suppose) to know God's thoughts on the matter of SSM, so that there could be no uncertainty of it and no denying it.  That was the purpose of the church being involved in Prop. 8.  Once that was accomplished, fighting SSM in each state became unnecessary.

 

If that's true the church would have stopped at Hawaii. Hawaii was the first battle - mid 90s, same time the PotF came out. Do you really doubt that the "world" was not aware of the church's views on SSM after the church issued a "Proclamation to the World" on the family?

Edited February 2, 2017 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have heard some speculate (and that's all it is as far as i know) that it was necessary for the USA (and the world, i suppose) to know God's thoughts on the matter of SSM, so that there could be no uncertainty of it and no denying it.  That was the purpose of the church being involved in Prop. 8.  Once that was accomplished, fighting SSM in each state became unnecessary.

 

Speculation or not, that makes sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

If that's true the church would have stopped at Hawaii. Hawaii was the first battle - mid 90s, same time the PotF came out. Do you really doubt that the "world" was not aware of the church's views on SSM after the church issued a "Proclamation to the World" on the family?

Hawaii didn't get nearly as much attention as California. I had never even heard of it until long after the fact.

[Thinking]

"I've gotta have my cake and eat it, too."

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You don't know the Church leaders very well if you think that or if you think the law is the only thing that is keeping the Church from engaging in partisan politics.

I understand a former Relief Society general president -- acting on her own part, not as a Church representative -- gave the opening prayer at a Trump campaign rally in Utah. She was not slapped down for it, to my knowledge.

 

I certainly don't know them personally. But I think they would have stepped in and warned people away from Trump, if they could have done so officially. 

Of course the church would never punish anyone for supporting any political candidate. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

It's not that it's a "waste" of time, but that time is a valuable resource and the leaders choose to spend it on other more pressing matters. The calculation goes like this: "We can spend time on normal church efforts (think 4-fold mission) or we can spend time speaking out against SSM." In that consideration, it matters quite a lot whether speaking out will do any good. As a rational actor, I'm not at all surprised that the church would speak out in areas where its voice could make the difference (precisely what happened in California) and not speak in areas where it has no power (e.g., Ohio). 

There's literally millions of issues and candidates worldwide that the church take a position on. But there's not time and resources to do so. The church is an efficient and rational actor if there ever was one.

I hear what you are saying, i just disagree that it's obvious that such would mean the church wouldn't endorse candidates even in other countries where it could be legal.

These are the reasons that the 12 and 70 delegate.  

[Gray]

Anyway, I think the amendment is a good one. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing advocacy of political candidates. 

[Buckeye]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The recent statements have spoken to broad principles that have a moral foundation. If you're expecting the Church to go after the Trump administration directly, I think you are on shaky ground, as much of the expressed opposition is very debatable. And that would get into partisan politics, which the Church very studiously avoids.

All I'm saying is that, if we're really serious about religious freedom, we should be willing to speak out as loudly for other faiths as we would for our own. I'm confident that our response would have been stronger if Trump's directive was targeted at excluding Mormons. 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Buckeye

[Sky]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think you need have much fear of that from going to an LDS meeting.

On the other hand, imagine an extreme situation: What if a modern-day Liburn W. Boggs were to arise and start advocating the extermination or removal of Mormons? Wouldn't you expect the Church to oppose such a candidate?

By the way, I clicked on your link above. It takes me to a report on a highly biased web site going off a leaked document that contradicts official White House statements. I think hand wringing at this point is a bit premature.

 

To answer your first question, sure.  

But I think our Muslim refugee brothers and sisters are in a much more dire situation at the moment.  They need our attention.  

And just because a source is pro-LGBT does not mean it lacks merit.  But, I will post another source for you anyway.  I don't think it's premature to talk about it. 

(I sure hate to see conservative religious groups and LGBT groups come to a head like this under Trump.  Makes me sick.)

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/02/trump_says_he_ll_destroy_johnson_amendment.html?client=safari