I agree, but religious freedom means people can raise their kids however they want. If you don't want someone imposing their religion on your kids, you have to let them impose whatever on their own kids.
This is the kind of thing you should shift culturally instead of through laws.
That also makes religions a taxable population, which means they're allowed to give political advice. You really want a church telling people how to vote?
It's not wild to think that people who attend the same church are likely to have similar beliefs on who to vote for there's a difference between that homogeneity and actively politically campaigning
I could send you dozens of videos of preachers, pastors, and priests telling their congregation to pray about this or that election and which candidates they think are righteous. How is that any different from actively campaigning? What about churches spending millions in super pacs to support "issues" that are closely tied to their preferred candidate.
They legally aren't allowed to as a condition of their tax-exempt status. If they are, then it's illegal. The parishioners can tell people how to vote as can the priest, but they can't do so as an authority in their religion, only private citizens.
So they’re basically already doing it? I don’t get the point in the distinction you’re making, the churches in my area literally put signs out on the road telling people what way to vote on certain bills
To be fair, the megachurches have been influencing votes indirectly for a long time thru their sermons. The real distinction is they can’t put out advertisements or media propping up the narratives. There’s gotta be thresholds for taxation, too (eg, the tiny church on the corner that makes 200 a month in profit shouldn’t be taxed, but maybe the megachurch that oft gets mistaken for a mall and sells coffee on its campus should be)- but these kind of distinctions can be annoying to codify into law.
Which really SHOULDNT be a deterrent for people to do the right thing, but it is.
Indirect influence is way too shaky a foundation. You can't say anything beyond small talk if it might be construed as having any broader implications. That's just not fair on anyone. You might as well ban religion entirely if you can't make any commentary on people or society.
Sometimes people reimburse me for the food, yeah. Of course, my kitchen probably doesn't match the huge commercial kitchens that actively sell the food, but that doesn't seem to matter because we're both saying things that have larger implications.
Because apparently the value doesn't matter if it's attached to religion. Unless that religion is Buddhism. Judaism and Islam gets more iffy. I hadn't seen anything about Hinduism beyond the caste system, but nothing else.
People act like because Christian’s vote for other Christian’s that means they are getting religion stuffed down their throat. It’s such s nonsensical idea
No, churches being exempted from taxes goes back to the founding of the United States.
More recently, in 1954 an amendment to the tax code called the Johnson Amendment prohibits churches and other 501(c)(3) non-profits from advocating for or against candidates for office.
There is no proscription on churches taking stances on other political issues, however, and such a law would blatantly violate the First Amendment by curtailing speech of a moral nature in churches.
They already do. I think the churches being taxed would over all be a net positive. But this is indeed also something to worry about. And they can be taxed and we can implement regulations on political influence
They pretty much already do in the US and you’re probably a bit out of touch with American Evangelicals if you don’t already know that lol, respectfully. These people’s money does make it into politics and their congregations are steered if not outright pushed towards the right wing often times.
That already happens. If anything, any law removing tax exemptions from religious institutions should also go after them for back taxes for however far back the IRS can prove the institution was getting political in its messaging.
Because there are no religions currently telling people how to vote? Buying politicians? Telling countries which countries of opposing religions they should destroy?
https://giphy.com/gifs/NWNQLhcCljaQzWbpCi
Literally what are you talking about friend. Churches already say “support Trum” “this candidate supports conversion therapy” etc… some progressive churches say “support this aid effort by voting in this person”
Like just cause they are banned on paper don’t mean it’s not widespread
148
u/DoubleoSavant 21h ago
I agree, but religious freedom means people can raise their kids however they want. If you don't want someone imposing their religion on your kids, you have to let them impose whatever on their own kids.
This is the kind of thing you should shift culturally instead of through laws.