This development made my heart sad and my stomach hurt. There's no bigger gift to those corrupt individuals who would make this country into a theocracy than to do away with the separation of church and state. It's a vile corruption of religious principles and a corrosion of the rights of non-religious and atheist citizens. As an Episcopalian, it makes me want to spit nails. It is so motherfucking wrong.
So, when Pope Leo orders all American priests to denounce Chump from the pulpit along with his supporters and anyone who emulates his behavior, that's cool, right?
Who knew that it would be so easy to ignore, defy and thwart the clear intent of the Constitution? This should be another article of impeachment, but Dementia Don didn't leave his tiny fingerprints all over it.
Wow wouldn't it be weird if a porn cult got super popular and the head of that church ran for president. And then once elected they/them (whoever such a person might be!) rammed through a bunch of cool things like $30 minimum wage and universal healthcare because of all the work Trump did dismantling checks & balances against presidential authority. Wonder how hard it would be for such a hypothetical person to infiltrate the Republican party??? Prolly easier than the Democratic party. PROBABLY.
But but but... We don't care what an agency says anymore. Recall 'Chevron deference'? No! Judges get to decide! In Loper Bright v. USA the Supreme Court said so!
"Oh, but this is different." Uh-huh. IOKIYAR, huh?
Ta, Robyn. I. Just. Can't. Even. With. This. SHIT.
That said, I'm glad I'm changing my name to a hyphenate. Beloved Meccalopolis has such a generic white-sounding last name that appending it to mine was absolutely the correct choice. I've already amended my Social Security card. Next up, petitioning the court.
After Citizens United why not Churches. Congress for sale to the highest bidder. Likely going to see a proliferation of ‘Churches’. How about the Church of Political Righteousness.
This sucks, but changes nothing as pretty much every evangelical church has been directly and openly violating the Johnson amendment pretty much all the time for decades.
When America hath a king, the king shall decideth what religion everyone shall be, so not only will churches be allowed to endorseth political candidates, they will be 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 to endorseth the political candidates that the government favoreth.
Or leftists could use their superior creative& empathetic powers to start their own religions. You know, reimagining the possibilities of what organized religion can be while harnessing the potential it always had to, you know, organize people.
Beg your pardon, but how do you move the idea of an authoritarian deity to the "left"?
The very concept of religion is toxic in itself. We humans have to help each other out instead of offloading it onto a god who may or may not deign to help.
if you can't imagine religion without an authoritarian deity, especially since they already exist, then I can't take your claim that religion is inherently toxic serious.
Also the civil rights movement wouldn't have had any legs to stand on without organized religion so maybe check your fucking privilege
Why create a new church. Pope Leo's a bonafide lefty. We just have to convince him to issue a Papal Encyclical firmly denouncing Chump and his policies.
Opus Dei gets in line, or they get excommunicated.
*raises hand* oh! Oh! I know this one! Because Christianity is built on a foundation of intractable bullshit. You know the part where God demanded His Son be sacrificed to himself to atone for the sins of man even tho God created us knowing we would sin anyway.
There's a lot in the Bible reasonable people can say is an analogy and not literal, but the core tenant of why we need Jesus in the first place is—as they say—built on sand, and unsalvageable.
AN additional concern here ( besides the breakdown of the wall between church and state ( is that churches could now be used to funnel contributions to political candidates outside of the ( pretty in effective ) federal campaign finance system. Not sure how that works - or if it's anywhere near the threat that Citizens United has posed for our system of government - but it does strike as completely unconstitutional per the First Amendment ( especially how the IRS tries to separate churches from ( presumably secular ) non-profits in this "ruling".
Churches were already flouting this by creating separate PACs and laundering money to candidates that way. It was a tactic I first noticed people like Focus on the Family using back in the Tea Bagger days.
They probably did - but it was just as illegal then as it is now, just that going after a church for any reason is politically harmful. Also the FEC has been hogtied by, and the IRS starved by, Republicans. But yeah, Focus on the Family, a 501(c)3 organization at the time, created a 501(c)4 organization, Family Policy Alliance, which has fewer restrictions on backing candidates. Tho' the two groups are "legally separate", it's clear that this is the exact same dodge you're speaking of.
BTW - Focus on the Family filed as a church back in 2017 ( I have no idea if they were granted that status - but with this SCOTUS ruling, they may nop longer have to do that financial fan dance to avoid taxes.
PACs (or Political Action Committees) are advocacy organizations for particular political causes. They can endorse and run ads for an against candidates. They just can't "coordinate" with candidates.
It can be something benign like an environmental group or one endorsing and supporting women's health or LGBTQ rights.
The right has turned them into a fine "dirty tricks" art.
For example, with a church, you could use dark money to do opposition research against a church (like right-wing PACs do against liberal non-profits). Then you could use dark money to run ads against a candidate and connecting them to "dirt" you pick up about a non-profit that supports them. Or you could have a non-profit newspaper (like Art Pope's Carolina Journal) that gets passed the dirt you find.
So if a church wanted a zoning change for a new building or parking lot, you could use the PAC to advertise against it. Or hire a private investigator to get dirt on the pastor and pass that to a friendly news outlet, then run ads based on the news story you created. You might pass the dirt to a friendly law firm that might, for example, start advertising for clients that are victim's of a church's sexual abuse coverups.
If liberals used dark money PACs the way the right wing does, they'd be outlawed in a hot minute.
Thanks for the info - altho' I have to say I don't think your example about zoning law changes applies.
As it is, since "dark money" doesn't have to disclose their donors, what good would it be to use a church for this? I believe this ruling makes churches similar to "dark money" PACs.
Let's unleash all the Catholic and Protestant clergymen whose souls have not been corrupted and who clearly see what an outrage Trumpism is from a genuine Christian perspective (as well as those of other faiths, of course). Let THEM inveigh from their pulpits against Trump and all those allied with him, as explicitly as possible. A LOT of people will be listening.
They want to change the rules, fine. We can play by the new rules too.
Well that's how you mobilize the evangelicals. They're doing God's Work when they're tormenting the vulnerable minorities they hate (and of course making sure to undercut that hippie Jesus' whole thing about miracles and works).
Oh yeah this is going to change about the liberal church denominations. Sadopopulism goes hand-in-hand with the Christian nationalism that has taken sway.
Don't expect this to apply about other religions either.
This development made my heart sad and my stomach hurt. There's no bigger gift to those corrupt individuals who would make this country into a theocracy than to do away with the separation of church and state. It's a vile corruption of religious principles and a corrosion of the rights of non-religious and atheist citizens. As an Episcopalian, it makes me want to spit nails. It is so motherfucking wrong.
I have granted unto myself a religious tax exemption. Amen.
So, when Pope Leo orders all American priests to denounce Chump from the pulpit along with his supporters and anyone who emulates his behavior, that's cool, right?
Who knew that it would be so easy to ignore, defy and thwart the clear intent of the Constitution? This should be another article of impeachment, but Dementia Don didn't leave his tiny fingerprints all over it.
Wow wouldn't it be weird if a porn cult got super popular and the head of that church ran for president. And then once elected they/them (whoever such a person might be!) rammed through a bunch of cool things like $30 minimum wage and universal healthcare because of all the work Trump did dismantling checks & balances against presidential authority. Wonder how hard it would be for such a hypothetical person to infiltrate the Republican party??? Prolly easier than the Democratic party. PROBABLY.
But but but... We don't care what an agency says anymore. Recall 'Chevron deference'? No! Judges get to decide! In Loper Bright v. USA the Supreme Court said so!
"Oh, but this is different." Uh-huh. IOKIYAR, huh?
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-august/end-chevron-deference-what-does-it-mean-what-comes-next/
Ta, Robyn. I. Just. Can't. Even. With. This. SHIT.
That said, I'm glad I'm changing my name to a hyphenate. Beloved Meccalopolis has such a generic white-sounding last name that appending it to mine was absolutely the correct choice. I've already amended my Social Security card. Next up, petitioning the court.
After Citizens United why not Churches. Congress for sale to the highest bidder. Likely going to see a proliferation of ‘Churches’. How about the Church of Political Righteousness.
This sucks, but changes nothing as pretty much every evangelical church has been directly and openly violating the Johnson amendment pretty much all the time for decades.
Who would dare enforce the law against RWNJ evilangelicals, who are always the victims of persecution in their own minds.
When America hath a king, the king shall decideth what religion everyone shall be, so not only will churches be allowed to endorseth political candidates, they will be 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 to endorseth the political candidates that the government favoreth.
England has a state religion. It has little to do with state proceedings and is largely ceremonial.
The USA has an ecumenical food fight vying for control of the state. It currently runs a significant number of state legislatures and Congress.
Then TAX THE CHURCHES!
Or leftists could use their superior creative& empathetic powers to start their own religions. You know, reimagining the possibilities of what organized religion can be while harnessing the potential it always had to, you know, organize people.
Beg your pardon, but how do you move the idea of an authoritarian deity to the "left"?
The very concept of religion is toxic in itself. We humans have to help each other out instead of offloading it onto a god who may or may not deign to help.
if you can't imagine religion without an authoritarian deity, especially since they already exist, then I can't take your claim that religion is inherently toxic serious.
Also the civil rights movement wouldn't have had any legs to stand on without organized religion so maybe check your fucking privilege
Why create a new church. Pope Leo's a bonafide lefty. We just have to convince him to issue a Papal Encyclical firmly denouncing Chump and his policies.
Opus Dei gets in line, or they get excommunicated.
*raises hand* oh! Oh! I know this one! Because Christianity is built on a foundation of intractable bullshit. You know the part where God demanded His Son be sacrificed to himself to atone for the sins of man even tho God created us knowing we would sin anyway.
There's a lot in the Bible reasonable people can say is an analogy and not literal, but the core tenant of why we need Jesus in the first place is—as they say—built on sand, and unsalvageable.
Every union could become a church. Dues are tithes.
I know. I haven't thought this through.
No bad ideas in a brainstorm
AN additional concern here ( besides the breakdown of the wall between church and state ( is that churches could now be used to funnel contributions to political candidates outside of the ( pretty in effective ) federal campaign finance system. Not sure how that works - or if it's anywhere near the threat that Citizens United has posed for our system of government - but it does strike as completely unconstitutional per the First Amendment ( especially how the IRS tries to separate churches from ( presumably secular ) non-profits in this "ruling".
Churches were already flouting this by creating separate PACs and laundering money to candidates that way. It was a tactic I first noticed people like Focus on the Family using back in the Tea Bagger days.
They probably did - but it was just as illegal then as it is now, just that going after a church for any reason is politically harmful. Also the FEC has been hogtied by, and the IRS starved by, Republicans. But yeah, Focus on the Family, a 501(c)3 organization at the time, created a 501(c)4 organization, Family Policy Alliance, which has fewer restrictions on backing candidates. Tho' the two groups are "legally separate", it's clear that this is the exact same dodge you're speaking of.
BTW - Focus on the Family filed as a church back in 2017 ( I have no idea if they were granted that status - but with this SCOTUS ruling, they may nop longer have to do that financial fan dance to avoid taxes.
It's politically harmful to go after a church.
But that doesn't mean you have to do it publicly. That's what dark money PACs can do. And I'm here for it.
I'm not sure that's how PACs "political action committees" work - how could any PAC, even a "dark money" Pac go after achurch?
PACs (or Political Action Committees) are advocacy organizations for particular political causes. They can endorse and run ads for an against candidates. They just can't "coordinate" with candidates.
It can be something benign like an environmental group or one endorsing and supporting women's health or LGBTQ rights.
The right has turned them into a fine "dirty tricks" art.
For example, with a church, you could use dark money to do opposition research against a church (like right-wing PACs do against liberal non-profits). Then you could use dark money to run ads against a candidate and connecting them to "dirt" you pick up about a non-profit that supports them. Or you could have a non-profit newspaper (like Art Pope's Carolina Journal) that gets passed the dirt you find.
So if a church wanted a zoning change for a new building or parking lot, you could use the PAC to advertise against it. Or hire a private investigator to get dirt on the pastor and pass that to a friendly news outlet, then run ads based on the news story you created. You might pass the dirt to a friendly law firm that might, for example, start advertising for clients that are victim's of a church's sexual abuse coverups.
If liberals used dark money PACs the way the right wing does, they'd be outlawed in a hot minute.
Thanks for the info - altho' I have to say I don't think your example about zoning law changes applies.
As it is, since "dark money" doesn't have to disclose their donors, what good would it be to use a church for this? I believe this ruling makes churches similar to "dark money" PACs.
Maybe I just need to do more "research"
Good.
Let's unleash all the Catholic and Protestant clergymen whose souls have not been corrupted and who clearly see what an outrage Trumpism is from a genuine Christian perspective (as well as those of other faiths, of course). Let THEM inveigh from their pulpits against Trump and all those allied with him, as explicitly as possible. A LOT of people will be listening.
They want to change the rules, fine. We can play by the new rules too.
Lord of Hosts -- sure! -- but who Hosts the Lord?
Well that's how you mobilize the evangelicals. They're doing God's Work when they're tormenting the vulnerable minorities they hate (and of course making sure to undercut that hippie Jesus' whole thing about miracles and works).
Oh yeah this is going to change about the liberal church denominations. Sadopopulism goes hand-in-hand with the Christian nationalism that has taken sway.
Don't expect this to apply about other religions either.
The evangelicals worship the Old Testament Jesus.
Tax them then, dammit.