Why Does Trump Want The Johnson Amendment Repealed?

Submitted by: normalfreak2 1 month ago News & Politics


At Trump's National Prayer Breakfast earlier this week, he repeated one of his campaign promises — he's going to repeal the Johnson Amendment. What's the Johnson Amendment?

It an amendment, drawn up in 1954, and bans all tax-exempt nonprofits, which includes houses of worship as well as charities, from "directly or indirectly" participating in any political candidate’s campaign.

Here's what Trump said about it at the event...

"Among those freedoms is the right to worship according to our own beliefs. That is why I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution. I will do that. Remember."

I'm fine with this. If churches want to give their money to a candidate, they can start as soon as their tax-exempt status is surrendered. w/b: fancylad
There are 36 comments:
Male 3,474
Yes, yes, fancylad. Surrender tax-exempt status. Heck, that'd be quite a landfall for government revenue. I'd really like to see that, being my city is probably half tax free, like rehabs and religious places. The water supply and sanitary sewers, let alone the pot holed streets. Troy, New York. The birthplace of the American industrial revolution.
0
Reply
Male 228
More money in politics...ooops...
0
Reply
Male 163
If we lived in a just world I would have no problem with the church contributing money to whomever politician they wanted. It will be misused and be A lobbyist group of an all new type. Churches can't even share their buildings. I see two churches right next to each other a homeless person sleeping on the street. They have their own agendas just like Washington. Don't worry though money equals free speech and the church will have a megaphone.
1
Reply
Male 255
Sadly, the intent is to increase the take of politicians from the most successful con industry ever invented.
1
Reply
Male 421
punko Yup.  That about sums it up.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
What I don't understand about this charge is that Trump stated it is for "Religious Freedom" yet he banned travel from countries purely based on that religion.  I'm confused...
0
Reply
Male 1,132
kalron27  its not a ban its a suspension for 90 days.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
casaledana Keep telling yourself that...we will reconvene in 90 days...
0
Reply
Male 1,237
kalron27 trump is too stupid to see the irony of it.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
oobaka #hairpiece
0
Reply
Male 1,364
kalron27 He didn't. He campaigned on that promise, but when he asked Giuliani how to do it, Giuliani said that would be unconstitutional. Instead, he instituted a temporary ban on everyone who was born in a few Muslim countries, claiming that he'll come up with some better security measures to oust anyone he deems to be a terrorist later.

It might still affect Muslims disproportionately (which would make it unconstitutional), especially since it seems like that was the law's intended purpose, but it's not, on its face, a Muslim ban. Despite what Trump promised he would do.
1
Reply
Male 1,679
bliznik Sounds like slippery Politician tactics to me...where is the Drain the Swamp? ;)
1
Reply
Male 7,497
kalron27 Because he didn't. 
0
Reply
Male 1,679
megrendel "Iran, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Sudan"  Where is Saudi Arabia?
2
Reply
Male 7,497
kalron27 Please present the part of the executive order where it states religion was a basis for the band..
0
Reply
Male 1,679
megrendel When did you lose your sight?
1
Reply
Male 7,497
kalron27 I haven't, I see fine.

You, on the other hand, seem to be seeing things that are not there. The technical term for that is 'delusional'.
-2
Reply
Male 1,679
megrendel And I will repeat what I said earlier.   If you don't see something wrong with this, yet you had a problem with Obama...you are blind. In 2 week Trump has destroyed America with executive orders based on fear mongering and profit ventures for himself and his business partners.  That is my view, I'm an American, I voted, it is my right to stand up for something I find Un-American.
1
Reply
Male 7,497
kalron27 I didn't have a problem with it when Obama did similar.  I am what you would call 'consistent'. 
0
Reply
Male 1,679
megrendel Then please explain to me why  Saudi Arabia is not on the travel ban list?
1
Reply
Male 7,497
kalron27  Yeah, why don't you ask Obama why he didn't consider Saudi Arabia as "countries of concern"?  It is, after all, Obama who signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on these countries, which is the basis for Trumps Executive Order.
0
Reply
Male 1,132
kalron27  Its based on religion because he banned the 50 other countries that are predominately Muslim.  Opps I'm wrong no he didn't.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
casaledana Seriously, if you don't see something wrong with this, yet you had a problem with Obama...you are just as blind.
1
Reply
Male 1,132
kalron27 Obama let illegals in to this country I don't see this happening with Trump. Not counting the obvious disregard for Christians and the obvious favoritism for Muslims.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
casaledana wow, that is the most ridiculous thing I have read today.
1
Reply
Male 1,132
kalron27  In 2016 Obama administration let 100. (one hundred) Christian refugees form Syria that's one half of one present of the Christians in Syria. in 2016 They let in 85,000 total refuges, half were Muslims and half of those Muslims came from two country one of which was Syria. The other half (38,000) Christians world wide were let in which as I said 100 were from Syria can you guess how many of the rest of the 38,000 Christians let in were from the middle east? Over a period of years during the Obama administration they let in 10,000 Sunni refugees and 56 Christians. So I'm not so ridiculous as you.
0
Reply
Male 1,364
as soon as their tax-exempt status is surrendered

I'm fine this this aspect of it, but I thought that the Johnson Amendment was created because tax-exempt churches (which are tax-exempt to separate church and state) were contributing to political campaigns (which intermingles church and state). The Amendment made it so that if a church contributes to political campaigns, it loses its tax-exempt status, since the church is choosing to intermingle church and state.

I thought that getting rid of the Johnson Amendment essentially allows tax-exempt churches to contribute to political campaigns. Which doesn't really make sense if you think about the purpose of why we make churches tax-exempt in the first place.

Am I missing something here?
1
Reply
Male 6,170
bliznik Nope and this kind of crap should bother real Conservatives.  Separation of Church and State is as conservative as a principle as it gets.
0
Reply
Male 7,497
normalfreak2 I think you're confused. 
0
Reply
Male 1,679
megrendel By what? What constitutes Separation of Church and State?
0
Reply
Male 343
Heck with that, as far as I am concerned they are all corporations anyway.  They should all be paying taxes.
2
Reply
Male 1,679
muert ^ This.  I would be fine with all of this, if taxation was equal as well.  We are NOT a Christian Nation, despite what most think.
0
Reply
Male 194
muert yes. the political status of churches (or anything that calls itself a church since it is so easy to get this status) is: "no representation without taxation". They don't get to intervene in politics, since they don't pay taxes. Repeal both laws. Allow them to do whatever they want as long as they don't get any free pass.
0
Reply
Male 6,170
m3dm3d I think side on this side of the issue but also I'm worried about intermingling Religion and Government.
0
Reply
Male 194
normalfreak2 then you are in the wrong country. All oaths are taken on the bible and most political agendas these past years (gay marriage, abortion, bathroom bills, Muslim ban...) are religion-driven. Churches already are involved in political sermons... There are lines between Clergy and Government, but none between Religion and State.
0
Reply
Male 6,170
m3dm3d I believe there are lines, they simple aren't enforced.
0
Reply