Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Spiritual Success and Repealing the Johnson Amendment
President Trump declared his desire to do everything in his power to protect religious liberty in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. The beginning was rather brash, as he declared his desire to attend for “the next seven years,” which earned him some laughs. After being introduced by a friend from The Apprentice, the president asked for prayers for Arnold Schwarzenegger, his less-than-successful successor on the show. He then he turned serious. After explaining how his mother taught him from the family Bible, he spoke of the importance of “spiritual success” over material success.
He declared his desire to overturn the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which effectively silenced minsters from speaking out on political matters through provisions in the tax code. This is not the first time Trump has called for its repeal. For example, he spoke about it in an interview with EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo last summer. And the Atlantic reported on it in August.
My take-away from this cheering and strengthening speech: “America will flourish as long as our liberty, in particular our religious liberty, is allowed to flourish.” May the Lord bless the USA!
Published in Politics, Religion & Philosophy
Thanks for sharing his full speech, the headlines I had seen focused entirely on the fact that he mentioned Schwarzenegger and The Apprentice, as if his entire remarks were self-centered and “an embarrassment.” In fact he simply did what many good public speakers do, i.e. open with a few jokes or funny stories to warm up the audience before getting down to the meat of the talk.
Or else, “The lake was frozen.”
That’s exactly right. Who does not know, for instance, about the virulently anti-Israel platform of PCUSA?
It’s not a restriction on free speech. It is a trade off. Churches etc. get an exemption from taxes in return for staying out of politics. Any organization that wants to be involved can voluntarily surrender their exemption. I don’t think that’s right, but it is current law.
I’m not sure the rights of the individual or individuals are subject to some sort of monetary agreement with the government. The premise would be that the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights is some sort of commercial agreement. A commercial agreement that is entered into by one individual that not only binds them to a standard of behavior, but allows them to bind others in complying with a standard of behavior that they have never agreed to observe.
I see no reason why they, and other alleged “charitable corporations” like colleges, should not pay taxes. If they are truly “institutions of purely public charity” in the words of my state’s constitution, meaning they really do expennd any money they make on charitable purposes like they’re supposed to do, the burden would be minimal regarding income tax.
But property tax, now: in Bryn Mawr, Pa, the Presbyterian church and my eponymous alma mater occupy two large, nearly contiguous campuses improved with huge pseudo-Gothic and contemporary buildings. The property tax assessments on such land in the heart of the Main Line are quite substantial. And non-political? I don’t think so. I was horrified to read that a student Trump supporter was forced out of the college last fall–and as I said beefore, PCUSA’s support for the Obama agenda, especially regarding Israel, is well known.
They reap the benefits of their desirable location and they benefit from municipal services. Why shouldn’t they pay for it?
The original rationale was that they “relieve the government of some of its burden”, (how quaint!) but in practice they can’t prove that.
(Our state legislature, confronted with the inconvenient fact that such institutions, especially educational ones, are neither non-profit nor charitable, generously enacted a ststute exempting them from taxation even though they do not comply with the Pa constitution.)
As we learned through Lois Lerner, under B. Hasbeen Omega an organization obtained the desirable 501(c)(3) status easily if “progressive” but was obstructed from obtaining it if conservative. So we taxpayers all had to fund the Left’s agenda. Let all such non-profit corps pay their taxes. At least that way, the progressives lose their advantage.
The way it is now, Congress has effectually and in violation of the Constitution made a law tending toward an “establishment of religion”–and that fortunate creed is Progressivism.
I’m not a fan of Pres. Obama, Hypatia, but your insulting mockery of his name annoys me.
Perhaps your point is not bolstered by your sneering?
In response to your interesting points, Hypatia, I’m pretty sure that even though I agree with much of your criticism of certain institutions, I still favor tax-free status and free speech.
I’m devastated…????
maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall any similar rebukes in response to the epithets “Orange Pumpkin”, “Drumpf”, etc…
Well, put me on record now as finding it disappointing and unpersuasive and asking people to reconsider such language — if only since this post is on the Main page and not a private forum…
I’m wondering actually what the hell you are talking about?
Did someone use that kind of language in this thread, or are you just so reflexive in swinging back against criticism that you pull silly comments out of … somewhere or other?
Oh yeah, me too. But you don’t have to be tax exempt to exercise your First Amendment rights. You and I are doing it right now, in spite of the burden of taxation we bear.
Maybe we should scrap the 501(c)(3) entity form in favor of B corps (Benefit corporations) a type of corp which is not tax exempt but which, unlike traditional business corps., is not constrained by the primary goal to maximize profits for its shareholders. If such corps can “do well by doing good”, great–but if the “mission-driven- activities of their directors don’t turn out to be profitable, that’s ok too. In a stunning reversal of traditional corp law, shareholders can actually sue to make sure the Board DOES engage in such well-intentioned but financially dubious activity, and to ensure the Board does NOT act only in the pecuniary interests of shareholders.
Well, okay–at least “investors” (if you can call ’em that) in B Corps know what they’re getting into. I think a majority of states have some such legislation at this point.
I read “that kind of language” many, many times on this site over the past year, tho not, so far on this thread. i just don’t see why we owe our ex-Prez any respect, nor why you would be offended by my mild epithet.
But, y’know…I will still apologize to you as an individual, since for som reason you were. I am just SO angry. Don’t know if you saw the post about news magazine covers’ depiction of Trump, a thread on which I’m also commenting. I guess you feel we should just turn the other cheek–exemplary! But I’m not there. Sorry.
Thank you. I have always tried to avoid dehumanizing language for my own sanity. When I hear it, I tend to object, if only because I want to be in God’s record book on the side of light.
I agree with you that the insane hate spewing forth is horrifying and disheartening. Be not afraid!
Spoken like a Most Christian Mama! ?
They aren’t. Two different ideas. People, who by their very nature have natural rights and organizations created by people that do not have natural rights.
People pay taxes by law. Taxes may be the price we pay for civilization, they are not a fee we owe government to exercise our rights. Organizations exempt from taxes, by law, are entitled to exercise only those rights granted by the state. As noted above, I think it’s bad law, but those are the terms and conditions. Organizations are free to comply if they wish to receive the benefit.
It’s important to recognize that Fr. Smith is restricted from preaching politics from the pulpit, but not from speaking at a public rally in front of city hall. And yes, it’s obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Democrats typically violate these restrictions without fear of consequence. Another reason to scrap this rule.
The man is contemptible and you want us to respect him? I sneer at and about him whenever I feel like it and scolding someone else about is also annoying.
You must mean that fake “southern accent” Illinois style. Even then you had to know that Her Thighness was a fraud from the start of her “political” career.
Kay, ma soeur, Let’s have lunch!!
I did apologize to Mama Toad, who was just trying to heal the centurion’s ear (Luke 22: 50-51–though not the other 3 Gospels…). I get that. I have known many Christian saints who really believe in the feasibility of overcoming evil with good , and this IS her thread….
but really: I’ve always called him “Omega” cuz he tried his best to bring an end to our system. Does anyone deny this? “Hasbeen” at this point is self-explanatory–at long, long, last I can say of him: #NotMyPresident !! (Besides, we are inder no circumstances allowed to pronounce his Islamic middle name!) I think it’s quite mild, especially when you review the things Trump has been called.
As to the Johnson Amendment, it has always galled me that left leaning black ministers can get away with political speech and advocacy but traditional religious cannot. It is about time the Johnson Amendment was repealed.
I don’t understand these people who constantly slime President Trump. He put a 90 day hold on admitting people from just 6-7 countries until they can be vetted. Exactly the same thing that obama and Bush did. No difference, but no riots or demonstrations or outrages in those days, but our President now has him being shown as a beheader of people. Absolutely sick! The shameful thing is now, President Trump has backed down. Makes me want to cry.
No, Kay, I would never ask people to do what is impossible to me! Please don’t try to respect someone so contemptible as our former president.
I just dislike sneering mockery of people’s names. I feel not bad at all for scolding.