Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2017 Author Posted February 3, 2017 31 minutes ago, Sky said: It is evident that quite a few law-abiding Muslims feel they have something to fear from a Trump administration: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/gen-kelly-has-talked-about-human-rights-will-trump-listen/2016/12/30/ebabbcea-c928-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html?client=safari http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-muslim-americans-plan-to-resist-the-trump-administration-a7536366.html Also, none of the 9/11 terrorists were from the 7 countries listed on Trump's travel ban. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/514361/?client=safari Detaining people at airports because of their nationality and religion is unnecessary and wrong. It even originally applied to people with Green Cards! Some are even saying this is unconstitutional. It was poorly thought out and executed. There are better ways to prevent terrorism. Your opinion is noted. I'm going to elect not to respond beyond what I have already said. This thread is already skating on thin ice with regard to the no-political-discussion rule. To preclude an early closing of the thread, I would prefer to keep it focused on the subject of the Johnson Amendment, its possible repeal and how that might impact the Church.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2017 Author Posted February 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, rongo said: Friendly CFR. So tithing and fast offerings would be taxed as income? Can we confirm that? Or, would it be property that would be taxed? If donations to the church would be taxed, what would the tax rate be? I can only assume that taxation means taxation and that the Church would be taxed in the same manner as other entities. But I don't know how to document that. Maybe you should ask Karger what he wants to see happen.
Duncan Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 3 hours ago, bluebell said: Is the church allowed to endorse political candidates or influence politics in other countries? If so, have they ever done so? That's probably the best way to know how the church might act if it was ever allowed in the US. as far as I know the Church here hasn't done that 1
rongo Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I can only assume that taxation means taxation and that the Church would be taxed in the same manner as other entities. But I don't know how to document that. It would be nice to know exactly what we are (and are not) facing. I'm thinking of Elder Oaks' statement a couple of weeks ago that "some people are in a lather about things that just aren't going to happen." I don't know how to get facts to weigh on this either. All either side is doing is wildly surmising. I wonder how it could be nailed down just what "removal of tax exempt status" means?
bsjkki Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 My understanding is Trump wants to repeal the Johnson amendment and let churches keep their tax exempt status. Am I wrong?
3DOP Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Anyone here heard of the Johnson Amendment? It forbids 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations -- including charities, universities and churches -- from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Doing so could cause them to lose their tax-exempt status. At today's National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump reiterated his intent, voiced during his election campaign, to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Ordinarily I might oppose such a move. But now, with Fred Karger gunning for the Church, trying to deprive it of its tax-exempt status (altogether unjustifiably, in my view), repeal of the Johnson Amendment might be a thing that is needed to help protect the Church against ill-intentioned parties like Karger and his ilk. So now, I'm not sure how I feel about repealing the amendment. I'm bringing it up for discussion here. I would rather that my church pay taxes than to bind itself not to speak about what my church is against politically. Edited February 3, 2017 by 3DOP 2
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, bsjkki said: My understanding is Trump wants to repeal the Johnson amendment and let churches keep their tax exempt status. Am I wrong? Nope, that is what it covers. More specifically, the ability to speak on political candidates and parties without risking losing tax exempt status. The law exists now but is rarely enforced. In a well weaning and fair-minded society I could see repealing this amendment without any problems. We do not live in such a society. That this amendment is being considered by a President mired in missteps whose approval is constantly falling makes and who has been shown to be obsessed with being admired makes me believe this is a PR measure to win support and not a carefully considered idea thought to be worth advancing due to its own intrinsic merits. The true cynic in me thinks our President is envisioning religious leaders sermonizing on his merits and this appeals to his ego. Edited February 3, 2017 by The Nehor 2
3DOP Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Nope, that is what it covers. More specifically, the ability to speak on political candidates and parties without risking losing tax exempt status. The law exists now but is rarely enforced. In a well weaning and fair-minded society I could see repealing this amendment without any problems. We do not live in such a society. That this amendment is being considered by a President mired in missteps whose approval is constantly falling makes and who has been shown to be obsessed with being admired makes me believe this is a PR measure to win support and not a carefully considered idea thought to be worth advancing due to its own intrinsic merits. The true cynic in me thinks our President is envisioning religious leaders sermonizing on his merits and this appeals to his ego. I'll pay the tax to praise my president, Donald J. Trump! Happy man am I. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2017 Author Posted February 3, 2017 2 hours ago, rongo said: It would be nice to know exactly what we are (and are not) facing. I'm thinking of Elder Oaks' statement a couple of weeks ago that "some people are in a lather about things that just aren't going to happen." I don't know how to get facts to weigh on this either. All either side is doing is wildly surmising. I wonder how it could be nailed down just what "removal of tax exempt status" means? Even if it were a tax on property alone and not income the money would have to come from tithes, as Church properties do not generate income. Consider the thousands of meeting houses alone, setting aside temples and other properties. Can you imagine the staggering tax liability? There is no way to put a good face on this prospect. Being deprived of tax-exempt status would be yet one more way for Satan to hinder the work of the Lord in these latter days.
Duncan Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Even if it were a tax on property alone and not income the money would have to come from tithes, as Church properties do not generate income. Consider the thousands of meeting houses alone, setting aside temples and other properties. Can you imagine the staggering tax liability? There is no way to put a good face on this prospect. Being deprived of tax-exempt status would be yet one more way for Satan to hinder the work of the Lord in these latter days. Bro. Lloyd, now you know why people oppose Trump, because of this flubdubbery!!!! welcome to the club!
Calm Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 13 minutes ago, Duncan said: Bro. Lloyd, now you know why people oppose Trump, because of this flubdubbery!!!! welcome to the club! Except that what Trump would do would allow them to keep the tax exempt status and still be able to speak out and support political candidates. 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 10 hours ago, emeliza said: Maybe our church wouldn't, but others definitely would. I can't see our church doing that since its a world wide church with members of diverse views. It would do more damage than good to support a party or candidate. Small churches however would do this. A single protestant congregation would be a close nit group and the leader would know what political leaning are in that group. So it would be safe to endorse a candidate without offending too many in that church.
Duncan Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 32 minutes ago, Calm said: Except that what Trump would do would allow them to keep the tax exempt status and still be able to speak out and support political candidates. is that what he said?
sunstoned Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 10 hours ago, bluebell said: Is the church allowed to endorse political candidates or influence politics in other countries? If so, have they ever done so? That's probably the best way to know how the church might act if it was ever allowed in the US. With a wink and a nod they control the politics of Utah. 1
Calm Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Tried three times to start a new thread to avoid derailing...perhaps someone else will have more luck. Apologies, Scott... Likely to have a significant impact on church schools: http://religionnews.com/2017/02/02/evangelical-jerry-falwell-jr-to-head-trump-education-task-force/ Liberty University has a Creation Center for teaching Young Earth Science and other allegedly biblically consistent science. Falwell want to remove much of Title IX to leave sexual assault investigation in the hands of law enforcement. Wonder what if any that means for the schools (can't kick someone out who is a convicted rapist)? Schools don't have to cooperate? Edited February 3, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) https://mobile.twitter.com/kevinroose/status/826630781892251648/photo/1 This is what gets taught as science at Liberty allegedly. ------ "Falwell's literal interpretation of Christian scripture also colors how his university treats women and minorities. He is clearly not a fan of the LGBTQ+ movement, if his school's draconian student code of conduct is any indication. "Sexual relations outside of a biblically ordained marriage between a natural-born man and a natural born woman are not permissible," the code reads. Nor is Falwell Jr. a proponent of sexual education. Liberty University's publication, the Liberty Champion, has repeatedly argued against the need for sexual education for both middleand grade school children. Rather than educate kids, the publication instead promotes an abstinence-only stance. Falwell Jr. was among Trump's first and loudest evangelical supporters and was rewarded by being asked to lead the Department of Education. He reportedly declined, citing his desire to stay near his family and the university, in Virginia. He has strongly endorsed Betsy DeVos, the current nominee. As for his new chairmanship, "The main thing that he is seeking to do for the task force is to eliminate what he sees as excessive regulation of educational institutions," Liberty University spokesman Len Stevens told NBC News on Tuesday. Specifically, "the goal is to pare it back and give colleges and their accrediting agencies more leeway in governing their affairs," Falwell Jr. told The Chronicle of Higher Education the same day. "I've seen firsthand what the Department of Education is doing to college and universities, using the leverage of financial aid to micromanage college and schools with regulations that are overly burdensome," Falwell Jr. told the Wall Street Journal late last year. "Those are my particular areas of interest." The scope, size and specific mission of Falwell's task force has not yet been announced. Unsurprisingly, Falwell's appointment has angered a number of congressional members. "Jerry Falwell Jr. checks all the boxes for an education post in the Trump administration: he is bigoted, unqualified, and reliably opposed to protecting students from predatory companies," Democratic California Rep. Mark Takano said in a statement on Wednesday. "As a gay man, I am enraged that his anti-LGBT rhetoric is being rewarded with a leadership post. As a former teacher, I am deeply concerned for students who will inevitably be exploited by unregulated for-profit education companies. And as an American, I continue to be appalled by President Trump's pattern of selecting unqualified ideologues to guide national education policy."" https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/02/who-is-jerry-falwell-jr-and-why-is-he-reforming-higher-educatio/ Edited February 3, 2017 by Calm 1
Calm Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Duncan: "Mr. Trump said his administration would “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that prohibits churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status." Freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it is also a right under threat all around us,” Mr. Trump told religious leaders at the National Prayer Breakfast. “That is why I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.” Repealing the law would require approval by Congress, which could prove challenging given that Democrats, and even some Republicans, would resist what many view as an erosion of the separation between church and state." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/trump-johnson-amendment-political-activity-churches.html?_r=0
Robert F. Smith Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Allowing them to endorse or oppose candidates for election is hardly "getting into bed with churches." I am thinking of three things here, Scott. 1) the dominant, official position of the Church of England (Anglican, Episcopal) when the Establishment Clause was written, 2) the huge embarrassment to evangelicals getting into bed with immoral candidates for reasons of political expediency, and 3) the power to tax is the power to destroy (Daniel Webster). In the first instance, the Church of England had the power to tax in the American Colonies, and conducted major persecution of those dissenting from their official status, preventing them from building their own churches (in Northern Ireland), etc. The anger of the Puritans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc., was overwhelming. In the second instance, cozy relations between candidates (office holders) and religion brings mutual obligations which quickly descend into evil give and take. Making a deal with Caesar may seem innocuous enough at first, but practical considerations quickly tarnish the high ethical and moral standards of the religion. In the third instance, extrapolating from the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v Maryland, it was clear that govt could easily destroy an unwanted religion simply by taxing it. The separation of church and state turns out to be the best friend that religion has. Moreover, religion may still publicly push for issues it deems good for society -- just not for specific candidates. Seems like a win-win to me. 1
Duncan Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 6 hours ago, Calm said: Duncan: "Mr. Trump said his administration would “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that prohibits churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status." Freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it is also a right under threat all around us,” Mr. Trump told religious leaders at the National Prayer Breakfast. “That is why I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.” Repealing the law would require approval by Congress, which could prove challenging given that Democrats, and even some Republicans, would resist what many view as an erosion of the separation between church and state." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/trump-johnson-amendment-political-activity-churches.html?_r=0 If it does happen i'm sure the Church would be smart enough not to endorse any candidate or say anything improper, guess we'll see!
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Trump has a deep and abiding religious faith which is why he supports religious freedom. Here is Trump sharing his thoughts on God: 1
Gray Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: You don't have to know them personally to understand that opposing any political candidate for office, Trump included, would be altogether unlike the leadership of the Church. They've never done that sort of thing while I've been alive. To my knowledge, they haven't done it since the days of Nauvoo. Well, none of the current church leaders have ever been able to do it, because they would jeopardize the church's tax-exempt status. So the fact that they haven't done so in recent memory isn't meaningful. Quote And it's not self-evident they oppose Trump anyway. I think it's self evident given that the Deseret News put out that editorial against Trump. If there was any support for Trump in the FP or the 12 I doubt the DN would have run that editorial. You can dismiss this and file it under unconfirmed rumors, but I did read a post by someone who claimed they were at a dinner late last year with Elder Oaks. They claimed that Elder Oaks said that none of the apostles were voting for Trump, and he was bad news. This was before the election. Obviously I can't confirm that and it's third hand stuff. Edited February 3, 2017 by Gray
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Anyone here heard of the Johnson Amendment? It forbids 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations -- including charities, universities and churches -- from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Doing so could cause them to lose their tax-exempt status. At today's National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump reiterated his intent, voiced during his election campaign, to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Ordinarily I might oppose such a move. But now, with Fred Karger gunning for the Church, trying to deprive it of its tax-exempt status (altogether unjustifiably, in my view), repeal of the Johnson Amendment might be a thing that is needed to help protect the Church against ill-intentioned parties like Karger and his ilk. So now, I'm not sure how I feel about repealing the amendment. I'm bringing it up for discussion here. Fred Karger is a nuisance, albeit a small one. So no I see no need to repeal the Johnson Amendment.
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I said, I might be able to live with that. When parties start threatening the tax-exempt status of the Church of Jesus Christ, perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of secularism. I disagree. What we really need is a more secular government. To build that wall of separation even higher, and thicker.. Edited February 3, 2017 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 20 hours 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 protects government from religion. Do we as a multi-religious society want our government controlled by one religion. IE: Iran.
Duncan Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Just now, The Nehor said: Trump has a deep and abiding religious faith which is why he supports religious freedom. Here is Trump sharing his thoughts on God: x 50000000000000000000
Recommended Posts