rockpond Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Neither Prop 22 nor Prop 8 are what I would call partisan politics. I mean politics favoring one political party or candidate over another. The Church never does that. If you have an example of the Church doing so, I'm all ears. And the Church's involvement in the two examples you give was based on moral, not political, positions. I agree that the Church viewed the various marriage equality measures as moral issues and I understand that is why they spoke out. For me, they were always constitutional issues. Regarding the partisan nature of those propositions: back at the time, less so now, I think they were viewed as fairly partisan (Democrats and Libertarians being mostly in favor of gay marriage while Republicans tend to have an anti-gay marriage platform).
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2017 Author Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I agree that the Church viewed the various marriage equality measures as moral issues and I understand that is why they spoke out. For me, they were always constitutional issues. Regarding the partisan nature of those propositions: back at the time, less so now, I think they were viewed as fairly partisan (Democrats and Libertarians being mostly in favor of gay marriage while Republicans tend to have an anti-gay marriage platform). Be that as it may, partisan politics was not the Church's motivation for speaking out, morality was.
rockpond Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Be that as it may, partisan politics was not the Church's motivation for speaking out, morality was. I agree. I was only responding to your claim that the Brethren do not "involve the Church in partisan politics". I think that may be a bit too broad of a statement given that marriage equality could have been considered a partisan issue.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2017 Author Posted February 4, 2017 4 hours ago, rockpond said: I agree. I was only responding to your claim that the Brethren do not "involve the Church in partisan politics". I think that may be a bit too broad of a statement given that marriage equality could have been considered a partisan issue. If the Church opposes same sex marriage on moral, not political, grounds, it is not a politically partisan issue where the Church is concerned. My statement thus is not too broad. 1
rockpond Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: If the Church opposes same sex marriage on moral, not political, grounds, it is not a politically partisan issue where the Church is concerned. My statement thus is not too broad. The Church opposing something on moral grounds doesn't make it not partisan.
Teancum Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Those are points worthy of consideration. As I said, I've not yet staked out a position on whether or not the amendment should be repealed. One compelling argument against a repeal is that organizations that, in effect, receive a tax subsidy should not be allowed to use it for political campaigning (even though, as a practical matter, some churches do this and get away with it despite the Johnson Amendment when the IRS declines to prosecute them). I agree that the law is loosely enforced.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2017 Author Posted February 4, 2017 2 hours ago, rockpond said: The Church opposing something on moral grounds doesn't make it not partisan. It does with respect to the Church's support. Support for a thing is not inherently partisan.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2017 Author Posted February 4, 2017 47 minutes ago, Teancum said: I agree that the law is loosely enforced. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal advocacy group and a 401 (3) (c) tax-exempt organization, seems to violate the Johnson Amendment with impunity. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal advocacy group and a 401 (3) (c) tax-exempt organization, seems to violate the Johnson Amendment with impunity. So only conservative advocacy groups like The Heritage Foundation can use the tax code? SEE http://www.texasheritagesociety.org/501(c)(3)-Tax-Exempt-Status-Letter.html
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2017 Author Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: So only conservative advocacy groups like The Heritage Foundation can use the tax code? SEE http://www.texasheritagesociety.org/501(c)(3)-Tax-Exempt-Status-Letter.html Even after clicking on the link and viewing it, I still can't make sense of this post. I never said only conservative groups may use the tax code. All I did was comment on the SPLC's apparent (to me) violation of the Johnson Amendment. Edited February 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2
thesometimesaint Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Even after clicking on the link and viewing it, I still can't make sense of this post. I never said only conservative groups may use the tax code. All I did was comment on the SPLC's apparent (to me) violation of the Johnson Amendnent. Except that it doesn't violate the law.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2017 Author Posted February 4, 2017 28 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Except that it doesn't violate the law. Shortly after the election, the SPLC was making noise about a so-called "Trump effect" in public schools. Such vilification of an office holder and potential candidate for re-election strikes me as a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Johnson Amendment.
Teancum Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 On 2/2/2017 at 3:29 PM, 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? Separation of Church and State was designed to protect churches from government AND to prevent the government from establishing a religion as well as showing preference to one religion over another. How in the world is the Johnson Amendment respecting the establishment of a religion or abridging the freedom of speech of that religious group? As a Mormon you can say whatever you want about whomever you want in the political sphere. Keep in mind this law is a tax law. There was no income tax until 1913. For whatever reason at some point since 1913 the US government decided that Churches as well as other qualifying not for profit organizations should receive preferential tax status. The Johnson Amendment basically says that if you are an organization that gets this preferential treatment you cannot use those tax free (and tax deductible to the donor) to lobby or influence political campaigns or legislation. And this does not just impact a church. It impacts ALL 501(c)(3) entities. So no the law is not an infringement at all as you ask above. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Shortly after the election, the SPLC was making noise about a so-called "Trump effect" in public schools. Such vilification of an office holder and potential candidate for re-election strikes me as a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Johnson Amendment. Again having an opinion on the actions of public officials is not violating the "spirit' of the law. The "spirit" of the Johnson Amendment was to protect the separation of Church and State.BTW The Church can still preach that SSM is a sin all it wants. What the Church can't do is use tax dollars to subsidize it.
Sleeper Cell Posted February 4, 2017 Posted February 4, 2017 On Friday, February 03, 2017 at 9:21 AM, thesometimesaint said: It protects government from religion. Do we as a multi-religious society want our government controlled by one religion. IE: Iran. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the government?
Anijen Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 I am just echoing JHPRF (spelling? in which I agree with), who has already commented on; Separation of church and State. It was for the government not to be entwined into church affairs (so the First Amendment (religious clauses) could not be violated), not to keep religion out of politics, but only to keep politics out of religion. It has evolved over time to include restrictions on church's. I am for repealing the Johnson Amendment... Joseph Smith, running for President comes to mind... I think he would have wanted it repealed as well... List of tax exempt organizations who are highly political: Black Lives Matter ACLU Universities (I am a law student) American Bar Association (I am a member) NFL (has become political in some aspects) If these entities can remain tax exempt I do not see why churche's should not be able to have a political voice as well. I do not think the LDS church would be more or less than how they are now... 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 5, 2017 Author Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) On February 4, 2017 at 11:47 AM, thesometimesaint said: Again having an opinion on the actions of public officials is not violating the "spirit' of the law. The "spirit" of the Johnson Amendment was to protect the separation of Church and State.BTW The Church can still preach that SSM is a sin all it wants. What the Church can't do is use tax dollars to subsidize it. Did you read my earlier post about the Johnson Amendment? It grew out of LBJ's endeavor to punish a public charity organization that had made him mad. The origen had nothing to do with separation of church and state, although the amendment ultimately did encompass churches along with other 301 (c) (3) organizations. Nothing in the law forbids the Church of Jesus Christ from teaching in public or inside its own meeting houses that same sex marriage is wrong or is bad public policy. What the Church may not do is publicly support one political candidate over another or publicly oppose a political candidate. That would put it in danger of losing its 301 (c) (3) status, which would mean those who make monetary donations to the Church could no longer claim those donations as tax deductions. Therefore, when the SPLC vilifies Donald Trump as having a so-called "Trump effect" in public schools, the SPLC in my view is violating the Johnson Amendment by mounting public opposition against a political figure and likely candidate in a future election. Perhaps it's 301 (c) (3) status should be reviewed. Edited February 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 5, 2017 Author Posted February 5, 2017 11 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said: The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the government? 1 hour ago, Anijen said: I am just echoing JHPRF (spelling? in which I agree with), who has already commented on; Separation of church and State. It was for the government not to be entwined into church affairs (so the First Amendment (religious clauses) could not be violated), not to keep religion out of politics, but only to keep politics out of religion. It has evolved over time to include restrictions on church's. I am for repealing the Johnson Amendment... Joseph Smith, running for President comes to mind... I think he would have wanted it repealed as well... List of tax exempt organizations who are highly political: Black Lives Matter ACLU Universities (I am a law student) American Bar Association (I am a member) NFL (has become political in some aspects) If these entities can remain tax exempt I do not see why churche's should not be able to have a political voice as well. I do not think the LDS church would be more or less than how they are now... This upside down notion that the First Amendment is meant to protect goverment from religion might be the basis of some of the misguided ideas we frequently hear about separation of church and state. The reason for the separation is to protect churches, not government. 1
rockpond Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: It does with respect to the Church's support. Support for a thing is not inherently partisan. I agree that the Church's "support" (actually it was opposition) was based in its moral values and not a desire to be partisan. But that isn't what you claimed. You stated that the church didn't involve itself in partisan politics. Whether something is partisan isn't a function of a third party's motivations.
thesometimesaint Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 The Johnson Amendment doesn't preclude any church from having any political opinion it wants. It just says that a church can't publicly support a particular candidate for partisan political office and retain their tax exempt status.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2017 Author Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: The Johnson Amendment doesn't preclude any church from having any political opinion it wants. It just says that a church can't publicly support a particular candidate for partisan political office and retain their tax exempt status. The church would retain its tax-exempt status, but it might lose its 301 (c) (3) status, which would mean only that those who contributed to the church could no longer claim their donations as tax deductions. Edited February 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
ttribe Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: The church would retain its tax-exempt status, but it might lose its 301 (c) (3) status, which would mean only that those who contributed to the church could no longer claim their donations as tax deductions. Correction - its 501(c)(3), not 301. 1
mrmarklin Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 On 2/2/2017 at 10:46 AM, 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. Churches need to stay out of politics. One only need look at the record of the Catholic Church over the centuries. No no good can come of this. The Article of Faith is correct in this. Support your local government.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2017 Author Posted February 6, 2017 3 hours ago, ttribe said: Correction - its 501(c)(3), not 301. Thank you!
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2017 Author Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, mrmarklin said: Churches need to stay out of politics. One only need look at the record of the Catholic Church over the centuries. No no good can come of this. The Article of Faith is correct in this. Support your local government. I agree churches should stay out of politics. The Church of Jesus Christ, speaks out regarding public affairs when it concerns a moral issue. That is the church's right and province as well as its duty. Regarding the Catholic Church, if we look at the United States in the past two or three centuries, I believe Catholicism has been a force for good in society. Edited February 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Recommended Posts