Posted on 08/04/2016 10:35:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
While the media-begotten pseudo-scandals inundate the electorate with pro-Hillary messaging in an attempt to derail the Trump candidacy, it will do us well to consider some of the substance upon which concerned voters may wish to rely as they are sorting out the 2016 election. Donald Trump’s nomination acceptance speech contained a brief sojourn into a important but little discussed topic he has reiterated on the stump. Somewhat buried under the details that Mr. Trump laid out regarding the utter calamity that would be a Hillary Clinton presidency was his commentary on a 1954 piece of legislation known as the Johnson Amendment. The germane section of the speech was this:
At this moment, I would like to thank the evangelical community who have been so good to me and so supportive. You have so much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and protect free speech for all Americans.
Trump’s inclusion of his desire to repeal the Johnson Amendment as a component of his strategy to win the White House is something unique: it is an unexpected shot across the bow against the left, whose culture war has blocked Americans of traditional faith from using the power of the pulpit to influence political discourse over the past half-century.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
See it hasn’t been blocked for the left. Leftist churches have been spewing their politics without worry for decades.
Real traditional churches was what this was aimed at.
Liberty Counsel has some great research and advice for pastors on this subject.
Another consequence of the LBJ/DNC/KKK war on black Americans.
As a lawyer who works in this area professionally, one question that comes up is whether a repeal of the Johnson Amendment would also apply to secular charities, which are also prohibited by it from participating political campaigns.
Has it ever been challenged in SCOTUS?
Seems to me that ‘selective’ enforcement of this law is unconstitutional, seeing that AA Churches do political activities from their pews and pulpits without a fear......................
Free speech is not negotiable. Either ALL have it or NONE have it.
The Constitution does not have a ‘except for’ clause in the 1st Amendment....................
“See it hasn’t been blocked for the left. Leftist churches have been spewing their politics without worry for decades.
Real traditional churches was what this was aimed at.”
==
Yup, tho I wouldn’t care much for a pastor telling me who/what to vote for, if the church is fine with it there should be no limits on the right to free speech.
In fact, Constitutionally, it’s more than a little bizarre that a church or synagogue would be a place where free speech doesn’t apply.
With the shekels come the shackles.
Thats how we got fighters for the revolutionary war. Many pastors gave their sermons about just and unjust war, then took off their robes and underneath were their uniforms, and called for anyone who wanted to, to join up right there.
That is true, but even the act of having a ‘tax exempt status’ that can be withheld as a form of ‘punishment’ to said organization, is in effect a ‘punishment’ for free speech..................
This is false. Churches, like all other 501(c)(3) orgs, are only prevented from electioneering (i.e. endorsing candidates & working on campaigns).
Currently, every Church has two choices:
1. Accept the exemption and preach as the government decides by omitting how the politics of today relates to scripture and Christian living.
2. Turn down the exemption and speak freely to the congregation about the politics of today as it relates to scripture and Christian living.
I’m not sure what all the fuss is about - surely not a few dollars saved?
Government has devised a clever little scheme of providing a little bit of something to everyone in order to keep them from protesting too loudly about the provisions given to someone else. It winds up costing all of us more that we can afford while shutting our mouths at the same time.
^^ “addiction” ^^
never seemed to bother sharpton, jackson farrakhan, etc
Another reason the 16th Amendment (income tax) was the beginning of the end of our Republic. It put the government in every aspect of life... as it demands to know everything about you.
And so you would favor the government taking 40% of what the faithful give to the church?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.