Should the Johnson Amendment (forbids religions and charities from endorsing candidates) be repealed?

[Anijen]

On 2/4/2017 at 1:40 PM, Sleeper Cell said:

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the government?   

Surely you are joking or being sarcastic right?

I will reply as if you truly believe what you posted.

The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution) were intended specifically for the protection of individual rights protecting the citizens of the United States from an over reaching government. In other words exactly opposite of what you posted. For example:

The 1st Amendment, was to allow criticism of the government without fear of retaliation. This is where the free marketplace of ideas comes from. The reasoning behind this, is a freedom of speech, even critical speech, of the government. If one is has a liberty to speak as they feel all these ideas will be able to be placed in the marketplace for others to either subscribe to or reject (marketplace of ideas). This competition marketplace, which would allow this free flowing of ideas to become important and have a place of prominence and allow the freedom of those ideas to emerge, evolve, be refined, get perfected all without fear of retaliation from a government that they just over threw (the madness of King George and of England). It also allows the freedom of religious worship and religious expression, so that individuals may worship and express their religious views without fear of the government from interfering with that freedom. Thus allowing a criticism from religious leaders of the government and governmental leaders to hear their religious views from pastors, ministers, priests etc so that their congregations can also grow and have a free marketplace of religious ideas, again without the fear of governmental interference.

The 2nd Amendment. Before the English Army could make significant steps to quashing the rebel colonists they had to disarm them. You see as many people came to the colonies many were indentured servants and after their servitude were given some land and each a rifle or musket. These people (eventually becoming the bakers, milk men, farmers, cheese makers, black smiths etc) also became a large part of the militia.  England knew that military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. General Gage only had about 2,000 men (troops) in Boston and there were thousands of armed men in Boston alone and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the American Colonist of weapons and gun powder (see powder alarm). The Battle of Lexington and Concord purposes were to disarm the colonist. The ideology underlying American resistance was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense. This included the self defense of all inalienable rights. From that point the self defense foundation was constructed which was a political theory in which the people were the masters and the government was the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. 

 

No sir, the Bill of Rights was a protection for the people from a hostile government and not a protection for the "rights of the government" as you have posited.

[Gray]

On 2/3/2017 at 5:23 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

As I just explained to rockpond, I'm referring to partisan politics, where one political party or candidate is favored over another. I repeat, the Church does not do that.

Well they can't do that under the current law. So I'm not sure how you think that's meaningful.

On 2/3/2017 at 5:23 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, if you can provide a contemporary example where it has, I'm listening. But I'm not holding my breath.

Again, the Church only speaks out on moral issues as pertaining to public affairs.

Certainly no examples since the Johnson Amendment.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well they can't do that under the current law. So I'm not sure how you think that's meaningful.

Certainly no examples since the Johnson Amendment.

As I've indicated already, a lot of organizations violate the Johnson Amendment with impunity (including, it would appear, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and very recently; the IRS is very lax in enforcement of it). I suppose the Church of Jesus Christ leadership could have done that too, if they had been disposed to do so, which they are not.

But I'm not aware of any incident of them doing it prior to the enactment of the Johnson Amendment, which was in the mid-1950s. Are you?

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I've indicated already, a lot of organizations violate the Johnson Amendment with impunity (including, it would appear, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and very recently; the IRS is very lax in enforcement of it). I suppose the Church of Jesus Christ leadership could have done that too, if they had been disposed to do so, which they are not.

But I'm not aware of any incident of them doing it prior to the enactment of the Johnson Amendment, which was in the mid-1950s. Are you?

The Brethren actually seem disposed to be more cautious than is actually required by the law:  Every election cycle we get a letter, to be read over the pulpit, reminding members that the church does not endorse candidates or parties.

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I've indicated already, a lot of organizations violate the Johnson Amendment with impunity (including, it would appear, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and very recently; the IRS is very lax in enforcement of it). I suppose the Church of Jesus Christ leadership could have done that too, if they had been disposed to do so, which they are not.

But I'm not aware of any incident of them doing it prior to the enactment of the Johnson Amendment, which was in the mid-1950s. Are you?

When did the SPLC violate the amendment, and how?

I'm not aware of what political activities the church was involved in prior to the 1950s, full stop (with the exception of course of Joseph Smith's candidacy for president)

Edited February 6, 2017 by Gray

[Buckeye]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Brethren actually seem disposed to be more cautious than is actually required by the law:  Every election cycle we get a letter, to be read over the pulpit, reminding members that the church does not endorse candidates or parties.

A recent post on BCC mentioned that the First Presidency's letter in October 2016 drops the concluding sentence that was contained in previous letters: “Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest.” (see https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/02/05/the-church-should-remain-politically-neutral/ at FN 1). I'm not sure what to conclude from that other than the church really wanted to remain neutral as to endorsements of political candidates. 

 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

A recent post on BCC mentioned that the First Presidency's letter in October 2016 drops the concluding sentence that was contained in previous letters: “Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest.” (see https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/02/05/the-church-should-remain-politically-neutral/ at FN 1). I'm not sure what to conclude from that other than the church really wanted to remain neutral as to endorsements of political candidates. 

 

Probably a realization that asking members to seek out and uphold politicians who "act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest" was setting the bar too high.

Seriously, though, I agree that they were likely wanting to remain neutral in a VERY heated campaign.

[Analytics]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I've indicated already, a lot of organizations violate the Johnson Amendment with impunity (including, it would appear, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and very recently; the IRS is very lax in enforcement of it). I suppose the Church of Jesus Christ leadership could have done that too, if they had been disposed to do so, which they are not.

But I'm not aware of any incident of them doing it prior to the enactment of the Johnson Amendment, which was in the mid-1950s. Are you?

Surely you recall that the Church was heavily involved in partisan politics in Nauvoo. In exchange for some bad legal advice, Joseph Smith pledged his support of Cyrus Walker for Congress in 1843, but after Hyrum subsequently got a revelation that the Saints should vote for Joseph Hoge instead, Joseph announced to the Saints, "Brother Hyrum tells me this morning that he has had a testimony to the effect it would be better for the people to vote for Hoge; and I never knew Hyrum to say he ever had a revelation and it failed." 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Anijen said:

Surely you are joking or being sarcastic right?

I will reply as if you truly believe what you posted....

No sir, the Bill of Rights was a protection for the people from a hostile government and not a protection for the "rights of the government" as you have posited.

You should have posted the above in response to TSS, whose post Sleeper was responding to with his shocked question.  Perhaps you can't read quoted material?  Or the quote appeared to be part of the response to you for some reason?  Too small on your phone maybe?  or perhaps you just skipped it by mistake.

TSS appears to think the BoRs is to protect government from religion.  Sleeper obviously disagrees and imo sees the reasoning for that disagreement as pretty well self evident given what comes across to me as a shocked 'you have got to be kidding me' tone.  Hopefully he will correct me if I have misread him.

SometimesSaint:  "It protects government from religion. Do we as a multi-religious society want our government controlled by one religion. IE: Iran."

Sleeper:  "The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the government?"  

Maybe he should have added a few exclamation marks along with the question mark.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

When did the SPLC violate the amendment, and how?

I'm not aware of what political activities the church was involved in prior to the 1950s, full stop (with the exception of course of Joseph Smith's candidacy for president)

The Church through its official organ The Deseret News formally endorsed Alf Landon for President over FDR.

SEE https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/10/the-american-presidency-and-the-mormons?lang=eng

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

You should have posted the above in response to TSS, whose post Sleeper was responding to with his shocked question.  Perhaps you can't read quoted material?  Or the quote appeared to be part of the response to you for some reason?  Too small on your phone maybe?  or perhaps you just skipped it by mistake.

TSS appears to think the BoRs is to protect government from religion.  Sleeper obviously disagrees and imo sees the reasoning for that disagreement as pretty well self evident given what comes across to me as a shocked 'you have got to be kidding me' tone.  Hopefully he will correct me if I have misread him.

SometimesSaint:  "It protects government from religion. Do we as a multi-religious society want our government controlled by one religion. IE: Iran."

Sleeper:  "The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the government?"  

Maybe he should have added a few exclamation marks along with the question mark.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect governments from religions.

[Anijen]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

You should have posted the above in response to TSS, whose post Sleeper was responding to with his shocked question.  Perhaps you can't read quoted material?  Or the quote appeared to be part of the response to you for some reason?  Too small on your phone maybe?  or perhaps you just skipped it by mistake.

TSS appears to think the BoRs is to protect government from religion.  Sleeper obviously disagrees and imo sees the reasoning for that disagreement as pretty well self evident given what comes across to me as a shocked 'you have got to be kidding me' tone.  Hopefully he will correct me if I have misread him.

SometimesSaint:  "It protects government from religion. Do we as a multi-religious society want our government controlled by one religion. IE: Iran."

Sleeper:  "The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the government?"  

Maybe he should have added a few exclamation marks along with the question mark.

Thanks for the clarification. My apologies to Sleeper Cell. I read the thread and two days later when I get on I went to the last page, which makes me skip what I have read previously and anything added since. So I guess it should have been addressed to TSS (that rabble rouser).

[Analytics]

Some 100 years before the Johnson Amendment, Thomas Ford made an excellent point about the wisdom of religious groups steering clear of politics:

Quote

The great cause of popular fury was, that the Mormons at several preceding elections, had cast their vote as a unit; thereby making the fact apparent, that no one could aspire to the honors or offices of the country within the sphere of their influence, without their approbation and votes.It appears to be one of the principles by which they insist upon being governed as a community, to act as a unit in all matters of government and religion. They express themselves to be fearful that if division should be encouraged in politics, it would soon extend to their religion, and rend their church with schism and into sects.

This seems to me to be an unfortunate view of the subject, and more unfortunate in practice, as I am well satisfied that it must be the fruitful source of excitement, violence, and mobocracy, whilst it is persisted in. It is indeed unfortunate for their peace that they do not divide in elections, according to their individual preferences or political principles, like other people.

This one principle and practice of theirs arrayed against them in deadly hostility all aspirants for office who were not sure of their support, all who have been unsuccessful in elections, and all who were to proud to court their influence, with all of their friends and connections.

Thomas Ford, A History of Illinois, page 329-330

Edited February 6, 2017 by Analytics

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Surely you recall that the Church was heavily involved in partisan politics in Nauvoo. In exchange for some bad legal advice, Joseph Smith pledged his support of Cyrus Walker for Congress in 1843, but after Hyrum subsequently got a revelation that the Saints should vote for Joseph Hoge instead, Joseph announced to the Saints, "Brother Hyrum tells me this morning that he has had a testimony to the effect it would be better for the people to vote for Hoge; and I never knew Hyrum to say he ever had a revelation and it failed." 

 

 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

  2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I've indicated already, a lot of organizations violate the Johnson Amendment with impunity (including, it would appear, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and very recently; the IRS is very lax in enforcement of it). I suppose the Church of Jesus Christ leadership could have done that too, if they had been disposed to do so, which they are not.

But I'm not aware of any incident of them doing it prior to the enactment of the Johnson Amendment, which was in the mid-1950s. Are you?

Emphasis mine.

Just to be purposefully snarky (tee hee hee), There would have been no violation in either of the cases quoted above (heavily involved politics in Nauvoo, and any incidents prior to the enactment of the Johnson Act.

Wait for it;

Because you would first have had to have the Act on the books to violate it...

Told you I was being snarky. Sorry

Edited February 6, 2017 by Anijen

[ttribe]

57 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect governments from religions.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect governments from religions.

Despite only one amendment of the ten comprising the Bill of Rights being about religion? Bold statement indeed. Nonsensical, but bold.

[thesometimesaint]

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Seems pretty self explanatory to me. To keep them separate for the protection of both.

We also have the Constitutional requirement that no religious test for any public office or office of trust anywhere in the US.

[Analytics]

42 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Emphasis mine.

Just to be purposefully snarky (tee hee hee), There would have been no violation in either of the cases quoted above (heavily involved politics in Nauvoo, and any incidents prior to the enactment of the Johnson Act.

Wait for it;

Because you would first have had to have the Act on the books to violate it...

Told you I was being snarky. Sorry

Touche, lol.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Brethren actually seem disposed to be more cautious than is actually required by the law:  Every election cycle we get a letter, to be read over the pulpit, reminding members that the church does not endorse candidates or parties.

I agree. Which supports my belief that they would not be endorsing or opposing candidates, even if the law allowed them to.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree. Which supports my belief that they would not be endorsing or opposing candidates, even if the law allowed them to.

Agreed.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Seems pretty self explanatory to me. To keep them separate for the protection of both.

We also have the Constitutional requirement that no religious test for any public office or office of trust anywhere in the US.

The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, is intended to protect the rights of the citizenry from intrusion or oppression by the government, not the other way around. That's why it's called "the Bill of Rights" -- rights of the citizens, not the government.

The portion of the First Amendment you quote above does seem self-explanatory -- which is why it mystifies me that you insist that its intent is to protect government from religion. What an odd notion!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Surely you recall that the Church was heavily involved in partisan politics in Nauvoo. In exchange for some bad legal advice, Joseph Smith pledged his support of Cyrus Walker for Congress in 1843, but after Hyrum subsequently got a revelation that the Saints should vote for Joseph Hoge instead, Joseph announced to the Saints, "Brother Hyrum tells me this morning that he has had a testimony to the effect it would be better for the people to vote for Hoge; and I never knew Hyrum to say he ever had a revelation and it failed." 

 

If you will trace my conversation with Gray back to its initial stage, I think you will find that I specified contemporary incidents. By that, I meant the modern era, roughly corresponding with the 20th and 21st centuries. Which, of course, would omit the Nauvoo era.

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

When did the SPLC violate the amendment, and how?

 

I've already answered this at least twice now. But I'll say it again for your benefit.

In the days following the Trump election, the SPLC was blustering about "the Trump effect" in public schools, in effect accusing the president-elect of inciting bullying in schools. This liberal advocacy group, a 501 (3) (c) organization, was thus vilifying Trump.

Now, you could argue, I suppose, that the SPLC was technically not violating the Johnson Amendment, as Trump was no longer a candidate for office, having been elected. But I maintain that its action violates the spirit of the amendment, as Trump will likely run for re-election in four years.

Quote

I'm not aware of what political activities the church was involved in prior to the 1950s, full stop (with the exception of course of Joseph Smith's candidacy for president)

So I take it you can't cite any examples then. Neither can I.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

 

Emphasis mine.

Just to be purposefully snarky (tee hee hee), There would have been no violation in either of the cases quoted above (heavily involved politics in Nauvoo, and any incidents prior to the enactment of the Johnson Act.

Wait for it;

Because you would first have had to have the Act on the books to violate it...

Told you I was being snarky. Sorry

I should have been clearer. I meant I'm not aware of any contemporary (20th or 21st century) incident of the Church endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office.

(You need an attorney's mind around here just to word posts in a way that won't get you challenged by nit-pickers.)

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

(You need an attorney's mind around here just to word posts in a way that won't get you challenged by nit-pickers.)

I actually laughed out loud (here in my office) at that one.  Scott Lloyd complaining that others are "nit-pickers"!