Religion and Politics
Religious organizations are not allowed to publically endorse or contribute to a candidate running for any form of office. However, many of them do because it’s nearly unenforceable. Is it better to try and enforce this knowing that money will be funneled into candidates anyway? Or should churches be taxed and allowed to publically endorce whomever they like? I’ve heard arguments from the non-religious on both sides to varying degrees. Thoughts?
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Churches should pay taxes regardless of what they preach. The very fact that some religions get involved and endorse politicians reinforces justification for taxing them. The Constitution calls for a separation of church and state. By not taxing the church we are violating this clause.
BobLang
Level 4
Dec 2, 2017
0
they are in bed together robbing the common man.
LeighShelton
Level 8
Dec 1, 2017
0
Look, they should have been subject to tax like everything else from the beginning. Not taxing them is a subtle government subsidy that gives religions special status and I think that is contrary to the notion of separation of church and state. What this subsidy has done is allow them to obtain considerable real estate and structures. To accumulate wealth in a number of ways without having to report it.
I have no problem with them being given tax exempt status for genuine charitable operations, but NOT things like radio ministries, as just one example. They spread the word (and the political/social/economic pressure) through these avenues without the burden borne by other media.
Additionally, there should be restrictions on homeschooling curricula equivalent to those in public schools so that evolution and science are taught. Let the kids be indoctrinated in Sunday school where children have traditionally been screwed up.
Sorry for the rant.
evidentialist
Level 8
Nov 30, 2017
0
Don't be sorry, you are right.
The only way to "enforce" any limitations on political endorsements is to take money out of the process as much as possible, such as by enacting and enforcing laws to limit/eliminate partisan advertising and to fund all legitimate political candidates - i.e. those who meet the minimum nomination requirements in terms of public support, NOT money raised - publicly and equally in all election campaigns. The question of whether religious organizations should be taxed or not is another issue entirely... 
CharlieCochrane
Level 2
Nov 30, 2017
0
I’m for taxation. I also believe that there should be limits on political contributions. Maybe $100 per citizen because as it is now the Koch Brothers and other wealthy people pay for candidates. No corporations or business but only citizens. The candidates lower the taxes of the rich so they can afford more government and then we have an oligarchy which is what Russia has and what we’ve gotten over the last year.
gearl
Level 8
Nov 30, 2017
0
The presence of money in politics is the danger. Big tobacco, big pharma, and now the cable networks are flexing those muscles. Personally, I think all campaign funding should be tax subsidized and no private person or corporation should be allowed to finance or advertise for a candidate. Separately, churches should be taxed, because belief in one arbitrary thought should not offer any special benefit, whether that be the belief that one religion is true, that the earth is flat or that 6 is the prettiest integer.
DJVJ311
Level 7
Nov 30, 2017
1
I think no public money should go toward ANY candidate. Why? Well because in Hawaii they have public funding (among other forms of funding), but such funding can only go to a candidate that raised a certain amount of private funding. I was a candidate numerous times and always refused to accept any private funding (ie. contributions) from anyone. Then I could not receive any public funding. Now if they allowed ANY declared candidate to recieve public funding I'd go along with that.
That’s what I’m advocating... No private funding at all. Period. Billionaires, corporations and Joe Schmoe random people competing on ideas alone.
I think churches should be taxed and take an exemption on the parts that are directly charitable in nature (e.g., food pantries). They could still do their charity work, but the rest of what they do — including political contributions — would be taxed.
resserts
Level 8
Nov 30, 2017
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
2992 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.