Trump woos social conservatives with vow to scrap Johnson Amendment - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Donald J. Trump told a gathering of social and religious conservatives Friday that he would push to lift a ban that has barred churches and other tax exempt groups from endorsing political candidates, joking that it could be his ticket into heaven. Since wrapping up the GOP nomination and turning his attention to a general election match-up with Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump has been making overtures to the social conservatives that have been an integral part of the Republican coalition, and came here Friday to speak to thousands of social conservatives at the 11th Annual Values Voters Summit. “The first thing we have to do is to give our churches their voice back,” Mr. Trump said. “I will repeal the Johnson Amendment if I am elected your president.” Mr. Trump said in jest that he figures scrapping the 1950’s era provision named after then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson “is the only way I am getting into heaven.”[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/9/donald-trump-woos-social-conservatives-value-voter/"]Source[/URL]

Please no, I don't want a theocracy. [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] All he's doing is proving he doesn't give a fuck about civil rights. Of course, his VP pick already confirmed that.

Churches should be able to talk about political views. Points to Amendment #1.

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;51025732]Churches should be able to talk about political views. Points to Amendment #1.[/QUOTE] They can talk, not endorse. Keep the state and the church separate.

Well churches already kind of do endorsements for candidates, but instead of doing it on behalf the church, they just bring a well-known individual from a church, or a pastor and have them do the endorsement personally instead, plus I remember seeing a televangelist talking on behalf of Trump back when we had the RNC occur.

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;51025732]Churches should be able to talk about political views. Points to Amendment #1.[/QUOTE] I love that you think that in 60 years you are the first person to reference the first amendment, like lawmakers in the 1950's and preceding years didn't know what the fuck they were doing.

I don't think having religious groups endorse candidates would be a bad thing. Having a candidate enforce rules based on their religion may be an issue, but getting a thumbs up from a church or temple shouldn't be considered a bad thing.

[QUOTE=lolo;51025743]Well churches already kind of do endorsements for candidates, but instead of doing it on behalf the church, they just bring a well-known individual from a church, or a pastor and have them do the endorsement instead, plus I remember seeing a televangelist talking on behalf of Trump back when we had the RNC occur.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. The Johnson Amendment mostly affects "egregious electioneering", like raising money to buy ads against a politician. AFAIK the IRS has never gone after an individual for speaking in praise of a politician.

-snip- nvm

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51025754]I don't think having religious groups endorse candidates would be a bad thing. Having a candidate enforce rules based on their religion may be an issue, but getting a thumbs up from a church or temple shouldn't be considered a bad thing.[/QUOTE] Sure, but then they shouldn't be tax-exempt.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51025754]I don't think having religious groups endorse candidates would be a bad thing. Having a candidate enforce rules based on their religion may be an issue, but getting a thumbs up from a church or temple shouldn't be considered a bad thing.[/QUOTE] If a religious group endorses a candidate, doesn't that put moral pressure on the worshipers of the group to vote for the endorsed candidate rather than vote based on policies?

Stuff like this means I'll never understand why Trump supporters moan about how Hillary only does things to get votes. Like this is specific targeting and pressuring right here from the "real" and "genuine" candidate.

If a church officially endorses a candidate, it would heavily imply that members of the church are obligated to vote for that candidate, since it's what their moral council says to do

[QUOTE=Rossy167;51026002]Stuff like this means I'll never understand why Trump supporters moan about how Hillary only does things to get votes. Like this is specific targeting and pressuring right here from the "real" and "genuine" candidate.[/QUOTE] *whispers* Because they're hypocrites..

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;51026017]If a church officially endorses a candidate, it would heavily imply that members of the church are obligated to vote for that candidate, since it's what their moral council says to do[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if a church can "officially" endorse a candidate but like I said, nothing stops a pastor or a priest or other head of faith to namedrop the candidate of their choice during a sermon or whatever. The Johnson Amendment wasn't written to stop that, it was to stop tax exempt organizations from giving money to political causes with zero paper trail.

Every pastor I've known has endorsed a candidate from the pulpit. I don't see how this is much of a problem. In my experience, people in the same church tend to think similarly anyway.

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;51025732]Churches should be able to talk about political views. Points to Amendment #1.[/QUOTE] churches should not be able to fund our politics either. churches also already have larger national not-for-profit council groups that officially endorse candidates. The johnson amendment just keeps individual parishes from getting involved in politics, and its very rarely enforced at that, but its an important part of our democracy and should not be touched at all, if anything it should be strengthened

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;51025732]Churches should be able to talk about political views. Points to Amendment #1.[/QUOTE] And nobody's saying they shouldn't. What we're saying, what that amendment says, is that they cannot directly endorse a candidate as that would be a violation of the separation of church and state upon which the government and entire country was founded. America is not a theocracy and religion has no business in our government. End of.

Stop talking like this would be an issue primarily involving religion. If this went through, it wouldn't put us into a 40k style super theocracy, this is a TAX issue. Church and state honestly has little to do with this. I agree they should be separated, but be sure you're clear -why- it's an issue, otherwise it's just a different shade of ignorance

The church shouldn't have a say in politics - that role is specially reserved for coal/oil companies, NRA, and the arms industry.

[QUOTE=Rossy167;51026002]Stuff like this means I'll never understand why Trump supporters moan about how Hillary only does things to get votes. Like this is specific targeting and pressuring right here from the "real" and "genuine" candidate.[/QUOTE] A central part of Republican rhetoric for the past decade has been to just throw the kitchen sink at the other candidate, and the more hypocritical the better. Wealthy people don't give a shit what's true because conservative economics always help them, and the core lower/middle class right-wing voters have no fucking clue what they're doing and would shoot themselves in the face if they knew how the actual policies affect them.