Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political

>While some conservative Christians would like to see the rule abolished, others, especially the younger generation, support a clear separation of church and political endorsements. Many liberal churches are also active on policy issues, and could potentially get more involved in partisan politics.

>Mayer noted that for some religious leaders, the IRS rule has given them a way to avoid political pressure for an endorsement.

>"Now a church that wants to say no has an easy answer, it's illegal," Mayer said.

>Repeal does not appear to have widespread public support. Eight in 10 Americans said it was inappropriate for pastors to endorse a candidate in church in a poll released last September by Lifeway Research, a religious survey firm based in Nashville.

>For many religious conservatives, a more pressing issue they hope he will address is protection for faith-based charities, schools and ministries who object to same-sex marriage and abortion.

>The president made no mention at the prayer breakfast of other steps he may take, saying only that religious freedom is a "sacred right."

>Kelly Shackelford, head of First Liberty Institute, a non-profit legal group that specializes in religious freedom cases said that "there's a number of things he laid out that we expect we'll eventually see action on."

>Trump also defended his recent executive order on immigration, decrying "generous" immigration policies and arguing that there are people who seek to enter the country "for the purpose of spreading violence or oppressing other people based upon their faith." He also pledged to take more immigration action in the name of religious liberty.

>"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

>LGBTQ groups have been anxious that the president could use his executive powers to curb legal advances they have made. Emily Hecht-McGowan, chief policy officer for the Family Equality Council, said that she was "anticipating more to come," noting that some draft documents have been circulating, suggesting plans for a more sweeping order.

>White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Thursday that "there's nothing new on that front."

>Earlier this week, the Trump administration announced that the president would leave intact a 2014 executive order that protects workers for federal contractors from anti-LGBTQ discrimination, saying in a statement that Trump "continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election."

>Religious conservatives, who saw a series of defeats on same-sex marriage, abortion and other issues under former President Barack Obama, have been bolstered by Trump's win. In a letter last year to Roman Catholics, Trump pledged, "I will defend your religious liberties and the right to fully and freely practice your religion, as individuals, business owners and academic institutions."

>Trump's Supreme Court pick this week was also considered a positive sign for conservatives.

>A favorite of conservatives, Neil Gorsuch serves on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where he sided with Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor when they mounted religious objections to the Obama administration's requirement that employers provide health insurance that includes contraceptives.

>During his remarks, Trump also took a dig at Arnold Schwarzenegger, the new host of "The Apprentice," the reality TV show Trump previously headlined. Trump said that since Schwarzenegger took over, the show's ratings have been down, and he asked the audience to "pray for Arnold." Schwarzenegger tweeted in response that he and Trump should switch jobs and Americans would sleep better.

>Associated Press

Hope you guys like living in a christian version of ISIL 'cause that is likely if this rule gets killed.

>>107649

Well I wouldn't go that far but the idea behind tax exempt status for religious organizations is that they aren't classified as businesses.

But if they're going to start lobbying for political candidates they may as well be; in that case, they're providing a service in exchange for one (voters to vote for their candidate).

They already discretely (and indiscreetly) opine for candidates / parties and often get away with it; this will just let them officially do that without risk.

Check off another hallmark of fascism. What a scumbag moron they elected.

I expect they'll have African levels of corruption disease inside of three years. sad.

>>107649
How would that even be bad?

American Christians are essentially regular people who only pretend yo believe in magic because it's pleasant.

Not anything like ISIS who actually listen to what the bible says about stoning rape and doing pedophilia L O L

>>107672
Many American Christians have some backward ideas informed by their church but I agree that on the whole you can find plenty of worse faith communities.

Still, it's not a risk I'd wanna take. Culture does not evolve in a linear path like technology. Communities can and do regress in their policy positions when it comes to faith-based ideology.

The platform Christians support today in the US may not be the same platform they support tomorrow.

>>107676
Yeah you're right. He will not divide us... He will not divide us...

>>107667
you're pathetic.
it's okay for universities to brainwash young idiots with communism, but a church pulpit is bad, huh?
unfuck yourself

>>107621
Religion is the basis for western societies ethics. As long as they do not equal as law, religion is great way to set moral corner stones and reinforce those, in a much better setting than just regular school.

Too many children gain their moral codes from social media and turn into hypocritical, unthinking and overall useless SJW's.

Pastors are people too and outside of their church services they should be allowed to endorse political candidates without fearing legal retribution.

It hasn't even been a month and he's trying to turn the US into a sand nigger level shithole.

>>107715
>Too many children gain their moral codes from social media and turn into hypocritical, unthinking and overall useless Trump supporters

fixed that for you

R.i.p separation of church and state

>>107621
Christian here

that is great

>>107715
this

>>107754
The bible is explicitly in favor of separation of church and state, are you unfamiliar with Matthew 22:21? Christians these days don't seem terribly familiar with the book they claim to follow, if Jesus suddenly showed up today you people would just call him a hippie or a cuck.

>>107765
Jesus was a radical liberal SJW

>>107715
> As long as they do not equal as law,

Unfortunately, that is what this is a setup for. Allowing religious institutions to play in politics is the stepping stone to religious laws.

> religion is great way to set moral corner stones

Especially the stuff about killing people who don't believe the same as you, have sex outside of marriage, wear mixed fabric clothing, eat unclean animals... it's all wonderful!

> Too many children gain their moral codes from social media and turn into hypocritical, unthinking and overall useless SJW's.

Oh please. You're looking at a small minority of people and conflating. I wonder, if people weren't so quick to try and smash on the rights of others because of religion, would the sjws ever have gotten started?

>Pastors are people too and outside of their church services they should be allowed to endorse political candidates without fearing legal retribution.

And they can. They can choose to pay taxes and then their voice can be heard.

>>107754
Will you feel the same way when mosques start heavily donating to politics and we start to see islamic laws proposed in states?

>>107649
I actually wish the US had multiple parties so we could have a Christian based one. Neither of the sides fully encompass my beliefs, so I'm forced to make choices between terrible and mediocre.

>>107788
>I actually wish the US had multiple parties so we could have a Christian based one

Which version? There are over 400 denominations of "christian" listed here, and it's not even an all-inclusive list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

>>107794
Catholicism. I think there would be enough voters to contend for house/senate if there were 7-8 other parties vying for control as well.

My only main concern for government is social issues, economic and everything else I just want whatever works the best at reducing poverty and creating stable jobs for citizens. I think so many people fight over ideas just because they're red or blue rather than actually thinking about how to handle something.

>>107754
Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's.

>>107799
> My only main concern for government is social issues

And why should Catholicism get a say in social issues for Jews, Hindus, Muslism, Atheists, etc? Would you be just as happy with Islamic or Buddhist social laws if you were forced to live under them?

>>107621
Trump the mental and emotional stump.
The retard represents the vast majority of insecure and inadequate americans.

>>107712
>communism
american political parties are no where near communism. even your left is moderate compared to most of the western world.

>>107801
Are you suggesting that no one should have a say in social policy? One way or another, one group of people is going to have their way with legislating ethics or a lack thereof. Why should I not want society to adopt moral beliefs akin to mine.

I believe the viewpoint that no decision should be made for an individual on certain social issues is a flawed one at worst and a difference of opinion on the sliding scale of the rule of law at worst. We already make a decision on if a human should be able to kill another human, or if drugs and prostitution are criminal offenses, or what foods we can eat, or if children are required to attend school or not. Where do we draw the line then? Do we profess that no man has that right and remove restrictions entirely on these things?

>>107815
>Are you suggesting that no one should have a say in social policy?

I'm suggesting that no religion should have a say in social policy because your beliefs should not affect my life, especially if I do not share your belief. There are already countries that do this, America is not one and should not be one.

> Why should I not want society to adopt moral beliefs akin to mine.

Again, are you also willing to accept if the moral beliefs that society adopts are not ones that are akin to yours?

> We already make a decision on if a human should be able to kill another human, or if drugs and prostitution are criminal offenses

Which are not based on religion, but on the facts of how lives are ruined by these actions. Also, please note that some drugs are allowed (smoking and drinking, prescription drugs, etc) and that prostitution is also allowed (moonlight bunny ranch, pornographic films, etc).

As far as foods, what aren't we allowed to eat? Other people?

Children going to school is based on history and fact that children going to school is better for society. But, as you said, they don't have to go if you're going to home school. Again, none of this is based on religion, it's all based on having tried a different system, seeing the flaws, and saying "this is better for society based on empirical evidence", not because some book handed down from "god" said so.

>>107649
Churches should not endorse candidates, but since secular colleges discriminate against conservatives and people of faith, religious organizations need to be able to speak openly without fear of punishment.

>>107824
> secular colleges discriminate against conservatives and people of faith

source? And are you as upset when religious schools discriminate against liberals and secular students?

> religious organizations need to be able to speak openly without fear of punishment.

They can, they just need to start paying taxes.

>>107820
>I'm suggesting that no religion should have a say in social policy because your beliefs should not affect my life, especially if I do not share your belief. There are already countries that do this, America is not one and should not be one.

The problem with that is, laws still have an effect whether or not they allow or permit something. By forbidding abortion for instance, we're bring more parentless children into the world, putting a strain on public resources and exposing them to conditions more likely to have a negative impact on their lives. By allowing it, we're trivializing sexuality and leading to the destruction of marriages and prevention of family bonds, causing children to be raised less frequently in stable households. Freedom, though a wonderful and lofty goal, is not always in the best interest of society at large, and we've already taken steps to limit freedom in other categories because of its damaging effect both empirically seen and unseen.

>Again, are you also willing to accept if the moral beliefs that society adopts are not ones that are akin to yours?

I would argue I'm already doing so, perhaps because I have no alternatives, but also because I know the ability to change the system is possible. Freedom and Democracy are not one in the same; democracy is a tool for the rule of the masses, and if the masses decide to forbid or permit something, I must follow that as a member of society. However, I will continue to use the avenues available to me to change society in a way I believe prudent (Though obviously this cannot happen in a fair democracy until voters of an issue reach critical mass, which can be fair or corrupt depending on your interpretation of the rule of law.).

<cont>

>>107838
>Which are not based on religion, but on the facts of how lives are ruined by these actions.

I would challenge that statement in the sense that laws originally stem from a moral decision, not a utilitarian one. We cannot say where the morals end and the utilitarianism begins, though both are certainly a factor in their creation.

No one advocates for higher taxes despite it being a net good for society (In theory, assuming those funds are well used), nor do we advocate for prohibition of alcohol despite proper enforcement seeing benefits to society. This is because we as a whole have made a moral decision that the freedom of the individual to choose these things is of greater concern to us than the potential beneficial effects it could bring to society as a whole.

>Also, please note that some drugs are allowed (smoking and drinking, prescription drugs, etc) and that prostitution is also allowed (moonlight bunny ranch, pornographic films, etc).

This shows that people have concluded that the line between what is right and wrong is not able to be decided solely on utilitarian purposes. In reality, there are many shade of grey between each act, which makes any sort of hard and fast rule on something difficult to codify. As above, we have attempted to strike a balance between personal freedom and benefit to society, the question now lies in if we should move that line forward, backward, or leave it alone.

>>107839
For the record though, I do wish America could be a sort of neutral ground where freedom is held as the highest ideal for the downtrodden masses and that all could do whatever they saw fit. Unfortunately, with the destruction and displacement of the old order of things, people such as myself have nowhere else to turn and no country to flee to, and now must attempt to change a place that is divorced from these notions to better suit our ideals. In the end, I would say the only way to keep peace between persons such as you and I, the only way to prevent infighting, is to simply reduce the meddling each of us have in others' lives; to bring about a stronger divide between federal and local rule of law.

>>107765
Why is it that people who hate Christianity so willing to use scripture to get what they want from Christians.

>>107843
Because Christians want to use the bible as a source to say why their rules should be in place, when the same bible says why their rules shouldn't be in place, and you have to follow your book if you're a Christian. We're just pointing out why you're wrong based on the stuff you're supposed to believe, since you won't listen to the Constitution.

>>107843
To be honest, it's most likely due to a disconnect on what causes Christians to make their decisions.

Many non-Christians assume Christians follow their doctrine because they are Christian, and thus attempt to refute their doctrine based on those notions. It's more often that Christians follow their doctrine because they have come to the conclusion independently that their beliefs are correct, and are merely following an institution that also espouses them (Shown by Christians swapping denominations when one becomes antagonistic to their beliefs).

The structures that make up a person's belief are largely ingrained by repetition, specifically during one's formative years, or created by a rebellion from old lines of thought (Which is why people who no longer support an idea are more likely to become vehement opponents of their former way of thought -- it's a rebellion against the person they were, and they cling to the nearest line of thought that allows them to turn against that.).

>>107838
>The problem with that is, laws still have an effect whether or not they allow or permit something

Right, but we're talking about where the laws come from. In your case, you're stating your faith (Catholicism) should be the decider on what is and is not a good law, and I'm stating it's not, because if we were to follow catholic law, everyone wold have to donate 10% of their income to the church, attend church on sunday, abstain from meat on Fridays during lent.

> By allowing it, we're trivializing sexuality and leading to the destruction of marriages and prevention of family bonds, causing children to be raised less frequently in stable households

Please, I would love to see the studies that prove that abortion leads to any of this.

> Freedom, though a wonderful and lofty goal, is not always in the best interest of society at large, and we've already taken steps to limit freedom in other categories because of its damaging effect both empirically seen and unseen.

Such as?

> I would argue I'm already doing so, perhaps because I have no alternatives, but also because I know the ability to change the system is possible.

My point exactly. Once you allow a religious set of rules in, how long do you think before you're not allowed to change the rules unless you're part of the religion? Or that they can't be changed at all because God has decreed them? We fought a war to get away from a system like that.

>>107839
>No one advocates for higher taxes despite it being a net good for society (In theory, assuming those funds are well used),

Yes, we do. Under FDR, the rich were taxed at a very high percentage and the US was able to do marvelous things that made the country a super power. We are now advocating for that very same thing again.

> nor do we advocate for prohibition of alcohol despite proper enforcement seeing benefits to society

We tried that once and you know what? It lead to more crime and more worse society and thus prohibition was repealed. See "historical and empirical evidence".

> As above, we have attempted to strike a balance between personal freedom and benefit to society, the question now lies in if we should move that line forward, backward, or leave it alone.

This can be boiled down: Your personal freedom ends where mine beings. Smoking a cigarette is not a problem until you're blowing smoke in my face. Drinking is not a problem until you get behind the wheel and drunkenly drive into my house. Utilitarian purposes.

>>107841
>For the record though, I do wish America could be a sort of neutral ground where freedom is held as the highest ideal for the downtrodden masses and that all could do whatever they saw fit.

This is what we're trying to do, and why repealing the laws that separate church and state are a problem. You're allowed to do whatever you want in regards to religion so long as it doesn't bother someone else (ie ritual sacrifice of your neighbors kids). You want to be neutral? Awesome, don't try to prevent me from buying liquor on Sundays, or regulate my ability to get an abortion. You don't want those things? Don't get them yourself, but leave my ability to do so alone and I won't try to regulate what you're allowed to do.

> Unfortunately, with the destruction and displacement of the old order of things, people such as myself have nowhere else to turn and no country to flee to,

Sure you do. Brazil is a predominantly catholic country, you could move there.

> and now must attempt to change a place that is divorced from these notions to better suit our ideals.

And has been divorced since it's founding. By trying to institute religious rules, you want to make America a theology instead of a republic, but only one in which your particular view gets what it wants.

> In the end, I would say the only way to keep peace between persons such as you and I, the only way to prevent infighting, is to simply reduce the meddling each of us have in others' lives; to bring about a stronger divide between federal and local rule of law.

Agreed, which again is why we have laws like the Johnson act to help prevent that kind of meddling.

>>107621
The Catholics back east can rise again. Yeah they aren't an overwhelming majority, but there are more than enough of them to put a dent in anything and everything liberals want to do.

>>107858
https://taxfoundation.org/pope-francis-weighs-tax-policy

If religious institutions become political institutions then they should be subject to the taxes of political institutions.

This is about business but I think it's applicable.

>>107621
>Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches
More like
>Trump vows to give priests freedom of speech.
Liberals love to try to twist everything he says to make it look bad. Fake news.

>>107892
They can already have this, they just have to give up their tax-free status. What is so hard to understand about this?

>Muh Libruls

Back to /pol with you

>>107715
LAW IS THE BASIS OF WESTERN SOCIETY

Give a hoot. Read a book. And something other than a fucking Bible too maybe.

>>107824
>>because things that dont exist money changing in the temple!

Good luck in Hell

>>107849
>In your case, you're stating your faith (Catholicism) should be the decider on what is and is not a good law, and I'm stating it's not, because if we were to follow catholic law, everyone wold have to donate 10% of their income to the church, attend church on sunday, abstain from meat on Fridays during lent.

I'm not saying we should live in a theocracy or something of that nature. Legislating church attendance and belief is a pretty poor way of doing things, since there's no way to change a person's personal beliefs through physical methods. I do, however, suggest that it's possible for separate people, religious and non, to hold similar moral beliefs, and thus possible to legislate based on those (For example, both Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, and everything in between might find the death penalty to be abhorrent -- even though their ideas why are different, they can agree they want a different end result.).

>Please, I would love to see the studies that prove that abortion leads to any of this.
Sorry, don't have any concrete evidence of this, just a few sociology studies that focused on the liberalization of sexuality and reproductive rights coupled with the rise of some trends of family structure and child upbringing. Nothing 100% solid that would link the two together. However, my mentioning of abortion specifically was to highlight the fact that such an issue does not have nothing but positives associated with it just as the opposite doesn't have anything but negatives, so we must consider what we value on each side when making a decision whether to support it or not.

>>107924
>Such as?
Obviously, when taken ad absurdum, complete freedom in a society, such as no laws regarding the ownership of various firearms/weapons/chemicals, may lead to dangerous situations where less scrupulous individuals are able to easily acquire and use such items, or the poor turning to cheap chemical satisfaction in the form of debilitating drugs assuming they would be widely available. In practical terms, we look at the dangers of each activity case by case and make decisions based on that. For example, society has found heavy ordnance not fit for civilian ownership because the potential for misuse outweighs the supposed benefits of freedom of ownership.

>Once you allow a religious set of rules in, how long do you think before you're not allowed to change the rules unless you're part of the religion?
This is a subject that is often brought up, and certainly deserves some attention. In any democracy, there is always the risk of the democracy coming to an abrupt halt when an overwhelming majority decides to voluntarily end it by handing off power to a higher authority, be it religious or secular. The same risks exists in the vacuum of religion that a charismatic, secular authority could rise to power and destroy the rule of the masses even without the supposed backing of the divine or otherwise.

That religious institutions are more able to destroy the rule of the masses may or may not be a valid complaint, but the risks of the destruction of democracy exist with or without them, and we have systems in place to prevent that destruction. So long as those foundations are not tampered with, we should not have any issue if a religious party assumes control of the nation since the people will always have the power to remove them in the next election.

>>107925
>Yes, we do. Under FDR, the rich were taxed at a very high percentage
Higher taxes for the rich, yes, but very, very rarely for oneself. It's easy for a mass of people to advocate that the exceedingly wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income to the government, but when given the option to pay say, 10% of the yearly income instead of 5%, I don't see these people volunteering out of patriotism or duty to their common man.

>We tried that once and you know what? It lead to more crime and more worse society and thus prohibition was repealed. See "historical and empirical evidence".
Once again, it's an institution with a positive and negative side of things. In the absence of strong law enforcement, it winds up becoming nearly unenforceable and does considerably more damage than aid. At its best however, the increased difficulty of obtaining alcohol throughout society led to a lessening of the negative effects of the substance, resulting in a benefit in those areas.

I don't particularly campaign for the prohibition of alcohol, it's more another point I'm using in the dichotomy of freedom and order and where we draw the line between the two. Personally, I'm not really concerned with the substance.

>Your personal freedom ends where mine beings.
I'd say this is a great line, assuming we as humans are trying to boil things down and codify them into concrete principles that can be understood and interpreted by everyone. It's an argument that falls apart once abstraction comes into play and things become related by degrees and tangents.

>>107926
I think the original statement was something alongside the lines of "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." This is very easy to understand, meaning that people have no right to directly cause harm to others. But what happens when we abstract this out further to include other topics? Someone who contaminates a water basin used for drinking by a city by releasing chemicals or organic refuse theoretically causes no harm to any individual due to the minute nature of his transgression in the grand scheme of things. But put together a fleet of fishermen dumping fish guts back into the water, and you'll suddenly be reaching a critical mass on pollution and eventually resulting in the poisoning of drinking water (Or in a modern sense, the overworking of machines designed to refine and clean said water causing a rise in operating costs and a need for additional taxes to cover it.). Is it the right of the fisherman to freely clean his fish wherever he wishes, or is it the right of the people to have lower operating costs on their water treatment plants? The enrichment of society or the empowerment of the individual?

>You want to be neutral? Awesome, don't try to prevent me from buying liquor on Sundays, or regulate my ability to get an abortion. You don't want those things? Don't get them yourself, but leave my ability to do so alone and I won't try to regulate what you're allowed to do.

>>107899
It's actually both.

>>107927
The thing is, I find your ability to do certain actions harmful to society as a whole, which then affects individuals down the line. If I thought that the particularly appalling conduct of a set of individuals who continually set about drinking to the point of passing out every night was damaging to society, I would campaign to stop it. If I thought abortion when taken at large as a statistic would down the road cause problems, I would vote in such a way to reduce or end it. One cannot live as part of the group, yet claim his individual actions solely affect him and his own, and that his withdrawal from some functions of society while participation in others is fine, especially when it comes to public welfare and works.

>Sure you do. Brazil is a predominantly catholic country, you could move there.
Predominance has only minor impact of legislative functioning. Every western nation today, including Latin American ones, still espouses the values of an egalitarian society and attempts to pass or revoke law based on it. In the past, when our ancestors did not like the laws of their land, they sought to uproot themselves and create a new state based on their ideals; we have no new land to go to anymore, so now we must make the best of what we are able to.

>And has been divorced since it's founding. By trying to institute religious rules, you want to make America a theology instead of a republic, but only one in which your particular view gets what it wants.
Theocracy is not the end goal. I do not fight to institute an arch bishop over the US who rules by sanction of the pope. I fight instead for the ideological beliefs I have, no different than a Muslim citizen or a secular citizen. In the same way a man may value certain rights of men, I also espouse certain rights of men, though my definitions of such do not line up with his.

>>107649
Oh yeah, I'm terrified of all those bloodthristy Christians who might have the audacity to tell me that chopping my dick off and calling myself Susan might be a big no no, and make me feel a boo boo in my tum tum.

>>107811
Our left literally wants to make us like Socialist Europe, so what is the actual difference

>>107765
Separating the church and the state does not mean that you can divorce the church from having an opinion on the state, it just means that the church should not rule the government, as the government should not rule the church.

>>107931
Mike Pence. Conversion camps. Go fuck yourself.

>>107933
Nor does the separation of church and state guarantee them tax exemption, yet we afford churches tax exempt status because it helps keep them separate fro the state. In return, we expect them to actively keep themselves separate from the state. If they reject the duty to keep themselves away from the government, why should the government not tax them?

>>107965
If men can "convert" into women, then why can't homos convert into normal people?

>>107966
They can, but they shouldn't be forced to - and the deputy-chief of our government shouldn't believe they should, but he does and you're ok with this. Broad expert consensus calls conversion "therapy" abuse, Mike Pence calls it "a great idea."

...bottom line: Another example of Trump's team attempting to fight facts with feelings.

>>107808
immigrant detected

>>107621
>What is separation of church and state
And another constitutional evisceration, this is going to end well.
Can we agree whether for better or worse religion and politics are a bad mix, you can't let emotional feelings take the wheel when you have to make global decisions. It's like hiring some hot girl for your job, you end up thinking with your dick and screw over yourself and others in the process. I can also imagine the next elections will be even more insane when on top of trumps antics we get every one and their mom's religions slamming it left and right.
Maybe I'm just overreacting but this really feels like a recipe for disaster, especially with everything trump has already spaghettied. It seems like a well intentioned idea, and he does have a point, kind of sucks not being able to be open about your religion and beliefs. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt but in all honesty he does keep raising red flags for some of the more crazy lefty scenarios.

>>107715
>outside of their church services they should be allowed to endorse political candidates

They can, currently, with no penalty. It's only within the church or in the context of church -- publications, etc. -- that they cannot endorse candidates without losing tax exemption (but I mean they can still endorse political issues to the extent of reading off a party's entire platform as a church sermon for example, and they can bitch about specific politicians all they want).

>>107656
This is a disaster for religion. This rule is never enforced, and now there will be major backlash. When people realize churches have more money than anyone else (Catholic Church=largest land owner in USA) but get off without any taxes, they will rebel and want the laws - which totally benefit churches now - changed.

You think conservatives are mad about welfare? Wait until liberals all find out how RICH churches don't pay any taxes.

>>107715
>Pastors are people too and outside of their church services they should be allowed to endorse political candidates without fearing legal retribution.

The problem with any religion being used as a moral compass is that they are based on non-facts. Religion morality is evil, pure and simple. Consider stem cells, which could help cure thousands of sick children, or even worse, contraception, which could stop the spread of AIDS and other diseases. Religion is killing society. The sooner it disappears, the better we all will be - and it's only a matter of time.

>>Are you suggesting that no one should have a say in social policy?

All the law says is that if you DO promote a political position, pay taxes like the rest of us.. That is ALL.

>>107843
Because Christians are hypocrites and you can show this by using their scripture against them.

>>108164
>Wait until liberals all find out how RICH churches don't pay any taxes.

>gather in a public space
>scream and cry
>usual celebrities scream and cry with you
>70% of crowd goes home so they don't miss their shifts in service industry jobs and African gender studies classes
>30% unemployed welfare leeches shit and litter in a public space for a few weeks
>eventually get bored and go home
>nothing changes, everyone has forgotten
>sole bill introduced into congress never stood a chance
>Six months later get together and congratulate and pat yourselves on the back for "making a difference" and "doing something" after nothing continues to change and everyone has still forgotten

The nation has pretty much moved on from "screaming liberals and celebrities" as a major political force. One they get their last few dollars out of it for marketing purposes, their astrourfed asses will be tossed to the wayside like the Tea party.

>>108185
the protests are essential because the white house and some conservatives keep pointing out how "the american people" wanted every single trump brainfart so we need to keep reminding folks that most Americans don't want him anywhere near government.

>>108190
>the protests are astroturf paid for by Clinton-camp financial backers
>we need to keep reminding folks that there are still a good portion of Americans who will scream and stomp their feet to whatever tune the media celebrities on the TV tell them to because if they don't keep LARPing as resistance fighters their only option left would be mass suicide.

FTFY

>>108203
You're a fucking moron.

Praise kek

>>108213
>$1 has been added to your Soros account.

>>107621
>without fear of retribution
Seriously? No fear from trump?

You are at a prayer breakfast.
Use it as an opportunity to have a reality host war.
He was even reading from prepared script teleprompter.
So it wasn't off the cuff Trump being Trump.
He fucking planned it.
As disrespectful as presenting that partisan bullshit in front of the memorial to the fallen CIA heroes.

The man has no shame.

>>108258
I watched the entire thing. What are you IM OFFENDED for?

>>108259
I am not saying that the other parts were not ok.
Just that a prayer breakfast is not the place for a take down. Not even expressing political opposition to a person or policy relevant to religious interests.

It was an ex-realty tv host trying to score points against another host on an issue that had nothing to do with religion and was contrary to nature and spirit of a prayer breakfast.

I would have thought that was obvious.

>>108164
>until liberals all find out how RICH churches don't pay any taxes.
This was somewhat of a thing back in the 90s. Edgy atheist liberals used to campaign for church's to be taxed . But it stayed on the fringes for the most part because
>church's contribute to alot of charity's
>most soup kitchens are created by church's
>church funded hospitals and health care
Nowadays it's only edgy atheist on the Internet that give a shit.

>>108170
But it's ok when anti theists and progressives are hypocrites.....

>>108185
Last time liberals were shot up at a protest, the majority of the nation said they should have shot more.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-03-kent-state_N.htm

This nation does not want liberals, it does not like liberals, and thinks that the only good liberal protester are dead liberal protesters.

>>107672
>the bible
0/10

>>107987
>and the deputy-chief of our government shouldn't believe they should

Why not?

.bottom line: Another example of Trump's team attempting to fight facts with feelings.

And why is acceptable when liberals and progressives do the same?

And blatantly violate the rules and scientific ethics for personal and political gain.

>>110391
I have far more trust for churches then the """scientific""" community. I'd much rather have a pastor in charge then a scientist or an academician, and I'm not even religious.

He probably plans to invest in churches