The case Donald Trump made on Thursday afternoon to a gathering in Orlando of around 700 conservative Christian pastors and their spouses is one he has relied on throughout this campaign in reaching out to evangelicals. The federal government, Trump argues, has effectively muzzled religious conservatives — and he alone can save them.
“You’re the most powerful lobby there is,” Trump told the American Renewal Project, an effort to get conservative pastors more involved in politics, even as candidates. “Yet you’ve been totally silenced, like a child has been silenced.”
It was the same message he delivered to evangelicals in his acceptance speech last month at the Republican National Convention: “You have so much to contribute to our politics, and yet our laws prevent you from speaking yours minds from your own pulpits.”
What Trump is talking about is something called the “Johnson Amendment,” a change to the U.S. tax code that was proposed by then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson in 1954 to prohibit tax-exempt organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Some, but not all, religious institutions claim tax-exempt status and are therefore technically required to abstain from using their resources on behalf of candidates.
Over the past decade, political speech has become a rallying point for many conservative Christians, including the group Alliance Defending Freedom, which encourages pastors to engage in “civil disobedience” to challenge the tax code. Given Trump’s ongoing campaign against political correctness, as well as concerns among conservative Christians over his bona fides on other issues, like abortion and same-sex marriage, it’s no surprise that he made free speech for pastors his main appeal to that constituency.
There’s only one problem: Pastors and other religious leaders can, and do, already engage in political speech, including candidate endorsements.
The fact is that no U.S. law prevents church leaders from endorsing candidates. What the law does not allow is endorsing on behalf of a church or using church resources — such as making an endorsement from the pulpit during Sunday services — while also claiming tax-exempt status.
Church leaders can even endorse using church resources at any time; they are simply expected to forgo their tax-exempt status in order to do so. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, but it does not provide a constitutional right to tax-exempt status.
Perhaps the best rebuttal to the idea that religious leaders operate under a clergy “gag” law is the fact that the Johnson Amendment is currently unenforced. So regardless of whether a pastor follows the tax code by separating his personal endorsements from his role with a church, the IRS is not investigating or penalizing churches for political speech.
In fact, the most prominent recent example of a pastor’s free speech may be the benediction delivered by Pastor Mark Burns at last month’s RNC, the most explicitly political prayer ever offered at a party convention. In his prayer, Burns declared Democrats to be “our enemies” and praised God for “giving [Trump] the words to unite this party, this country, that we together can defeat the liberal Democratic Party.”
Pastor Mark Burns delivering an explicitly political prayer at the Republican National Convention. (Photo: Reuters Video)View photos Pastor Mark Burns delivering an explicitly political prayer at the Republican National Convention. (Photo: Reuters Video) More Every fall since 2008, Alliance Defending Freedom has urged pastors around the country to observe Pulpit Freedom Sunday by preaching openly political sermons and sending copies of those sermons to the IRS — in effect, baiting the IRS to come after them. So far, they’re still waiting.
You’d have to go back to 2006 to find the last significant instance of the IRS investigating a church for political speech. In that case, it was the Bush administration’s IRS and the church in question was a liberal Episcopal congregation in Pasadena that was probed after a guest preacher delivered a sermon questioning the Iraq War.
According to the Alliance Defending Freedom’s own numbers, more than 2,000 pastors connected to the group have reported preaching political sermons since 2008. Yet none of them has been probed by the IRS for political activity or had tax-exempt status revoked.
In one particularly memorable example from 2004, a Baptist pastor in North Carolina told his congregants that if they voted for John Kerry, they needed to “repent of their sin” or resign their church membership. Nine members were ultimately voted out of the church. But while the pastor himself ended up resigning because of the controversy caused by his leadership, the IRS never got involved.
None of this will come as much of a surprise to the nearly two-thirds of American churchgoers who report hearing their clergy discuss political issues, in the latest survey from the Pew Research Center. Despite the old social rule that one should never discuss religion and politics in polite society, Americans have rarely shied away from combining the two subjects.
Nonetheless, Trump told religious leaders in Orlando on Thursday afternoon that in order to protect their own freedom of speech, they “really now have a one-time shot.” If he is not elected, Trump warned, “you are never going to have a chance again.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
i really have no idea what point youre trying to make.
unsurprising, of course.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Yeah, it doesn't surprise me at all. Kinda like the orlando shooters dad being on stage behind hillary.
You had no clue what I was getting at - you went all "he didn't do anything, but he's worse than the kkk supporting trump"?
Totally missed the point there. I'll try one more time: The point wasn't that the shooters dad was/is a bad guy. The point was the clinton campaign denied any knowledge of who he was, AFTER the press said who he was. Then the campaign went into "well, hell, we didn't know."
See, it was about her and her campaign lying, yet again. It wasn't about the dad, it was about the lie.
bro my response to DC is nothing about that, we're talking about Candidates, Who VS Who, and voters right now.
that convo has been over with, keep up.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
as a matter of fact though, i'm bout to burn right now.
so anyway, no thoughts on Trump and the evangelical vote? the article i just posted?
Last edited by Swish; 08/12/1605:30 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Oh Swish,, I think if you look around, you will find more than one occasion where Hillary was caught in lies.. The New York Times has a fact check thing on their site, Polifact shows that Hillary lies...
Fact is, both are lying sacks of excrement. Let's not fool each other. You can't get to where they are in this political climate without being less than 100% truthful.
Neither of these candidates are worthy. Not even a little bit worthy. But they are what our two BIG parties say we should chose from...
In the business world, if you were trying to buy a company and you looked deep into the books and found trouble, the saying is, this dog has fleas.
Well, you don't have to dig too deep to see, Both of these dogs are flee infested.
Unless or until leaders in both parties grow a HUGE set, it will always be this way.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Oh Swish,, I think if you look around, you will find more than one occasion where Hillary was caught in lies.. The New York Times has a fact check thing on their site, Polifact shows that Hillary lies...
Fact is, both are lying sacks of excrement. Let's not fool each other. You can't get to where they are in this political climate without being less than 100% truthful.
Neither of these candidates are worthy. Not even a little bit worthy. But they are what our two BIG parties say we should chose from...
In the business world, if you were trying to buy a company and you looked deep into the books and found trouble, the saying is, this dog has fleas.
Well, you don't have to dig too deep to see, Both of these dogs are flee infested.
Unless or until leaders in both parties grow a HUGE set, it will always be this way.
It takes a little bit for things to register in your mind, doesn't it?
Swish wasn't saying or implying she's not a liar. He knows that. He was questioning the previous poster than insinuated swish didn't know/wasn't aware she's a liar.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I try my hardest to avoid him but it's like a moth attracted to light. I gotta run up on him everytime he post something directed at me.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Dude only has 1 percent of the black vote as of now
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
lol definitely the wrong 1% i want to be apart of.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
For the love God, Trump needs to fire this woman asap.
This is the second time she has said some BS.
Obama decided to go to war with Afghanistan now?
Last edited by Swish; 08/13/1611:15 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
We we're winning WW2, but then Obama decided to drop the bomb on Japan.
-Katrina Pierson
Last edited by Swish; 08/13/1611:17 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Realization: there will most likely never be another republican president in this country.
The Obama admininstration has done a good job at bringing in those who live off the middle class, enabling those who feel entitled and those who feel we owe them something.
They are the ones having children at alarming rates and the perpetual cycle continues. They are future voters trained to live off the system. The perpetual cycle continues.
The takers are voters who vote for the givers. The givers are the people who promise something for nothing, the ones who promise anything to rock the vote.
This government entitles, enables and controls their population. Just what the left wants.
For the love God, Trump needs to fire this woman asap.
This is the second time she has said some BS.
Obama decided to go to war with Afghanistan now?
People like her are why I question how serious Trump takes this. Either they're incredibly stupid or trying to make enough stuff up enough times and have some people believe it. Pretty soon somebody from Trump camp will say Obama was responsible for 9/11.
The problem is that trump supporters WILL believe it.
That's all it takes. Trump and his people just have to put the idea out there.
The election is rigged.
The debate schedules are rigged.
Obama founded ISIS
And now, Obama sent us to Afghanistan.
That's all they have to do. Just implant the idea into their minds. That's all it takes.
Sorry, but a good portion of the trump supporters were the same ones who believed the Jade Helm nonsense.
They believed the birther movement. They believe he's Muslim.
That about sums up the mentality.
Last edited by Swish; 08/13/1601:36 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Realization: there will most likely never be another republican president in this country.
The Obama admininstration has done a good job at bringing in those who live off the middle class, enabling those who feel entitled and those who feel we owe them something.
They are the ones having children at alarming rates and the perpetual cycle continues. They are future voters trained to live off the system. The perpetual cycle continues.
The takers are voters who vote for the givers. The givers are the people who promise something for nothing, the ones who promise anything to rock the vote.
This government entitles, enables and controls their population. Just what the left wants.
Like I said, it was cringe worthy listening to the CNN reporter. She gave very vague statements and didn't respond to what Newt was saying very well. I'm wondering if she was just completely caught off guard by what Newt said and how blunt he was. She didn't pick up and actually go after what he said hard until around :40.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I don't know what happened to the Republicans. They have turned into angry know nothings that seen to get meaner every day. Now we have Trump openly talking about how the election is rigged with three months to go.
Maybe it goes back to when the Republicans gave voice to those affiliated with the tea party. I know there was a drastic change in tone after the 2008 election. Between the birther stuff, and the other silliness that happened they are becoming more and more difficult to take seriously.
I think Steven King said "Conservatives who for 8 years sowed the dragon's teeth of partisan politics are horrified to discover they have grown an actual dragon."
Ronald Reagan could take a swipe at another with a smile on his face, and was optimistic. People liked that. He was conservative but not stupid, he added to the clean water act and other environmental policy when it was needed.
This years candidate is just mean, and insulting.
Look at the list of who wont be voting for Trump.
Blacks, Latino, college educated women, Asian, even Utah is up for grabs because Trump's personality is so antagonistic. Its just not good these days, and I wish there was a better choice than Hillary. I see no end to the partisan divide with her in office, as I could do without the Clinton persona.
Ultimately they will have to change, demographics are not in their favor. But until they cut out the belief in conspiracy theories, and purge the anger that has obsessed them, they will be a minority.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
Don't worry bro. A few posters, and guilliani on Fox News, will try to explain what Trump was "really" trying to say.
Something something liberal media something.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The people who don't trust the government are perfectly fine with the government deciding if a US citizen can be throw into Gitmo without evidence or a trial.
