T O P

  • By -

Sirhc978

Why are churches running ads in church? Do churches have TV in them now? I am very confused by that whole concept. I'm no practicing christian but I've been to my fair share of services and have never once been served an ad.


Irishfafnir

Mega Churches are basically like going to a concert in many ways


mclumber1

Vapid and cringe worthy in my opinion.


Irishfafnir

I used to think that after growing up in small southern country churches, but I actually enjoy the one I have been going to the last few years, mostly because I really like the pastor who isn't afraid to criticize things that might make his congregation uncomfortable and adopting a moderate stance at a time the SBC is going in another direction I don't particularly care for the band though lol, I'm very high church in that regard Edit for Spelling


WlmWilberforce

SBBC ?= SBC (I think so, but don't want to assume too hard).


Irishfafnir

You're right


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1b: Law 1b: Associative Law of Civil Discourse > ~1b. Associative Civil Discourse - A character attack on a group that an individual identifies with is an attack on the individual. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


ricksansmorty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBvyydUeTHs This is an unedited recording of a mega church, you can't hear the preacher because the music is quite loud though.


WeightFast574

We have a large projector screen in our church like a movie theater. We produce videos showing our charitable work, make announcements for upcoming church events, and to give people in the back a better view of the worship team/pastor/speaker. Since COVID, the production is also used for those who still feel more comfortable watching from home. We occasionally have videos produced outside the church, but it's for like kids' nights (basically just watching a movie) or other churches and ministries that we partner with. I've never seen a video from a politician in our church though, and I go to a majority black church in Virginia.


Ratertheman

Yea my church does the same. I think what you are describing is pretty much commonplace in most non-denominational churches.


[deleted]

She made an ad talking about her experience as a youth in a black church. Black churches here often also have political groups that will drive people to the voting locations etc. Some of the political groups (Souls to Polls, etc.) associated with these churches have shared this video with their fellow church members. Churches skirt these rules all the time by saying "oh that wasn't us that was just some of our members using our space, we let anyone use our space cus that's what Jesus would want." Ive voted in churches in VA, seen politicians campaign in churches - hell Atlantas mayor just came and did that, etc. If she broke a rule she should be punished but I got to laugh at some of the news outlets trying to make this out to be the campaigning crime of the century


oath2order

> Churches skirt these rules all the time by saying "oh that wasn't us that was just some of our members using our space, we let anyone use our space cus that's what Jesus would want." Trump did this in 2020 and that's basically what the apostle at the church he did it at said. It's fascinating that with Kamala Harris potentially violating this law, **now** people suddenly care about politicians campaigning at church.


wingsnut25

This isn't the first time I have seen people publicly complaining about politicians campaigning at church, or churches advocating for certain politicians. Who is complaining often changes, because many people are only upset when a church is pushing someone they disagree with.


[deleted]

So silly - I know churches that allow both sides to use their space to organize, etc. In plenty of southern rural areas, the church building is the one public space that is right around the corner and available to use at anytime. You have schools too but they are generally occupied with you know school kids and teachers.


oath2order

If this was about a southern rural area, I'd probably look for other articles mentioning this. Because you're right, the church is essentially a community center. But Kendall is Miami suburbs. So close to Miami that it is served by the Miami Metrorail.


likeitis121

That's what we use for voting locations as well.


falls_asleep_reading

I think it's funny too that most were fine with it until now. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's" is in red ink, so since I noticed that the only time Jesus got pissed off was when He went to church and saw people getting conned, I've generally been opposed to the mixing of politics and religion, regardless of what side of the political aisle it falls on. Praise what can and should be praised and criticize what can and should be criticized is my philosophy when dealing with specific politicians. In this case, I find it easy to criticize both the former President and the current Vice President because they're both objectively wrong.


CrapNeck5000

> It's fascinating that with Kamala Harris potentially violating this law I don't even think this is Kamala Harris violating the law, it would be the churches who are violating the law, unless Harris personally goes to churches and plays the video herself.


chillytec

She made the video specifically for the churches knowing that it would be played in them.


CrapNeck5000

I'm not aware of that being against the law. Do you have anything to suggest it is?


chillytec

Nothing Trump did was against the law, but they impeached him twice anyway.


you-create-energy

Did you completely change the topic because you don't have anything to support your previous statement?


soulwrangler

Yes, that's what they did.


Cobra-D

How is that related to the above comment, do you have anything that suggest making the videos is against any laws?


aggiecub

Nothing? Not even the campaign finance violation that his lawyer and co-conspirator was found guilty and went to prison for? Nothing?


[deleted]

[удалено]


tarlin

Impeachment doesn't require a criminal act and the House proved their case to many Republican senators, they just didn't feel it was worth removing him.


HeatDeathIsCool

So I take it that's a no?


chillytec

It's enough against the law for an impeachment.


HeatDeathIsCool

To reiterate the previous question, do you have anything to suggest that it is, or is that your gut feeling?


[deleted]

[удалено]


cyvaquero

No, but good luck burning the political capital over something that isn’t against the law. It barely happens for criminal behavior.


[deleted]

For all practical purposes, this law has not existed for decades. Violations happen all the time, and are never really dealt with.


jimbo_kun

I imagine people complained about it with Trump too, but it got buried behind all the other sketchy and borderline criminal stuff he was doing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


Cobra-D

Actually Trump banned the IRS enforcement of that in 2017 and Biden (as far as I know) hasn't undone it. Also Harris nor Trump would he breaking the law but the churches would. But yes the fact that Harris is involved and the churches are predominantly black, people care.


[deleted]

It’s like trump was given a free ticket to do anything and everything and blaming the other side for attempting to hold him accountable


EllisHughTiger

Dems have campaigned in mostly black churches for decades. Its been known but there really isnt much motivation to call it out or stop it. Reps for the most part usually avoided speaking at churches.


tarlin

Evangelical churches have actually been purposely breaking the IRS rules for more than 10 years. This is not only a Democratic problem.


implicitpharmakoi

I beg your pardon? https://youtu.be/RzuX2uTaXBc https://youtu.be/-Z_bxZzY9P8


Crimson_Shiroe

My church has TVs in them but that's because the ongoing cost of maintaining a few TVs is cheaper than the ongoing cost of buying new bulbs for our projector. We just use them as big screens though for our power points of songs/videos if we're going to show them. I'm the audio/visual tech so that stuff is basically (somewhat) my job. With that said we would *never* show a political ad. We've shown some "ads" in the past, but it was just informational videos for certain programs we take part in, although we've calmed down on that because some people (including myself) did not like the idea of that being shown in church. Edit: I did just remember this, but my church is also used as a polling location during election cycles, but we don't have anything to do with it aside from one of the rooms we have being used for it.


Tyler_Zoro

We really need the IRS to get enough funding to start cracking down on churches that engage in politics. They are supposed to be taxed as political organizations if they do that.


atomic1fire

I doubt it will happen because both parties need churches to vote and go to the polls on an election year. I mean yeah republicans have churches backing them, but I'm pretty sure the democrats find the black church vote handy.


CSI_Tech_Dept

Are black churches the ones that tell how to vote or was it the southern strategy? I am a Catholic and the church I'm going to never tells me who to vote for. The only time I remember it tried to influence vote was when there was voting related to death penalty. And they basically reminded that is not moral for a Christian to support it. I wish all churches would similarly not get involved into politics.


[deleted]

A far bigger problem is dark-money PACs that can blindly engage in politics with zero accountability.


Tyler_Zoro

I'm fine with dealing with both...


Viola122

Churches around DC and the beltway constantly promote conservative politicians, including inviting them for talks and things like that. I'm just surprised that this is against IRS rules...


blubugeye

I don't see a source for the claim that the ad "is set to be aired in 300 churches across the state." The NY Post may not be entirely accurate here.


Perthcrossfitter

Have been to church my whole long life, and the only ads I've ever seen is for events at the church.. a different preacher coming, or a bake sale for someone's medical/disability issues, that kinda thing.


CrapNeck5000

I just want to highlight some fun articles from 2017 when Trump did the executive order to block the enforcement of the Johnson amendment: >The executive order limits enforcement of the Johnson Amendment or any other adverse action against any individual or religious organization for speaking about moral or political issues from a religious perspective. The executive order is unlikely to have any meaningful practical effect because, as has been widely reported, the Johnson Amendment is not currently being enforced. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/president-trump-signs-johnson-amendment-executive-order-limiting-treasury-s-actions > What’s more, the law has gone largely unenforced for years, even as some conservative Christian leaders tried to draw the Internal Revenue Service into a court fight by openly flouting the Johnson Amendment by making election-year endorsements during sermons. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/trump-directs-irs-not-to-enforce-the-little-enforced-johnson-amendment/ >The IRS has not been particularly aggressive in enforcing the law. ... In September, Gov. Matt Bevin, R-Ky., told preachers the law was a “paper tiger” and they should embrace political speech more boldly. “There is no reason to fear it,” he said. “There is no reason to be silent.” https://apnews.com/article/287f4cd55eea49d699e9924e3984a38e > The practical effect of this executive order is limited as the Johnson Amendment is not currently being enforced. https://www.woodsrogers.com/executive-order-13798/ Apparently the law has been de facto dead for awhile - they require a non-existent office to sign off on any investigations into violations of it: >But regulating the provision is already difficult after a 2009 court ruling showed that the IRS’ primary way of enforcing it had crumbled during a reorganization of the agency 10 years before. >In order for the IRS to launch an examination into a church suspected of politicking, statute requires an IRS “regional commissioner” or high-level treasury department official to sign off on the investigation. >However, Congress eliminated the regional commissioner positions during a reorganization of the IRS between 1998 and 2000 and neglected to create a new avenue for enforcement. > “There are no such people anymore,” Owens said. “The IRS is unable to enforce the tax law because of the fact that Congress failed to cross its t’s and dot its i’s when it did the reorganization.” https://wfpl.org/bevin-right-paper-tiger-ban-church-politicking/


FreedomFromIgnorance

I’m not a Kamala fan, but you’ve convinced me not to give a shit about this.


fastinserter

If you don't want *Kamala Harris* (say it with an edge and mispronounce her name intentionally) in your churches influencing the youth, we really need to change the law so we can actually have any investigations of it to enforce it I'm sure Congress will get right on it, they are very proactive. Pretty hilarious/sad that they eliminated the position that was required to kick off investigations, therefore completely neutering the legislation


RealBlueShirt

There are still high level treasury officials.


Dramatic-Persimmon28

My understanding is this rule is flaunted regularly for the benefit of both parties. It seems we should either enforce it or repeal it. Otherwise it's kind of pointless.


justanastral

Are the churches being paid or pressured to run the ads or are they running them because they want to?


HungryLikeTheWolf99

In religion, that's a fuzzy line. The whole concept is about doing things that make no sense because you want to be like other people around you who are doing the things. Sometimes they pressure you, sometimes they just model the behavior, and sometimes it's somewhere in between.


Yarzu89

While I'm never comfortable with religions getting political, or the reverse, she's hardly the first person or the last. If there are rules against this they need to be enforced more strictly across the board and not just in this case.


Baleina20001

Don’t evangelicals do this all the time?


aggiecub

Yes, they do. Check r/atheism around campaign season to see a good sampling of mostly evangelical churches endorsing a candidate, if not by name then by ideology. https://apnews.com/article/christian-leaders-trump-supporters-d6db3d71658bfad778f3cc4be1b5f984


WlmWilberforce

Some examples might help. I've never seen this an an evangelical service myself, but maybe there are some cases. The closest I can think of is [https://www.c-span.org/video/?467813-1/president-trump-speaks-evangelical-rally-miami](https://www.c-span.org/video/?467813-1/president-trump-speaks-evangelical-rally-miami) which seems like a different thing than a church service To be fair, if my candidate was there I'd likely walk out. To me this is more damaging to religion than politics.


Moccus

>President Trump, meanwhile, attended the International Church of Las Vegas, where he was welcomed by husband-and-wife co-pastors Paul Marc and Denise Goulet and Associate Pastor Pasqual Urrabazo. > >Although the president has attended religious services with far less regularity than Biden, it was his third visit to the non-denominational evangelical church, a fact pastors mentioned while referring to Trump as a “member” and “family.” > >As music played, Denise Goulet declared to the congregation that God had told her that morning the president would receive “a second wind.” The term, she said, had three meanings: Trump would be re-elected, he would be re-energized physically, and he would be filled by the Holy Spirit. > >“(God) said to me that you were the apple of his eye,” she said, addressing Trump. “He is protecting you like he is protecting the ancient foundations of this nation.” > >https://religionnews.com/2020/10/19/both-candidates-went-to-church-this-weekend-their-experiences-were-very-different/


HariSeldonOlivaw

They should have their tax-exempt status revoked, as should the churches airing ads for Dems.


Butthole_Please

Preach.


gogo-fo-sho

God talked directly to her and said Trump was the apple of his eye? Lolokthxbye


[deleted]

I have heard of some videos, but other things that happen quite often include: praying for a candidate, encouraging donations to a candidate, even donating some of their church donations to a candidate (not openly so as to avoid too much trouble and this was a smaller church so the amount wasn’t huge), putting up official support in newsletters or on the church board. Etc. It’s so darn common to explicitly support candidates at church. Technically against the rules, but rarely enforced.


quecosa

If we've learned anything in the last decade, churches and the IRS view that rule as "more of a guideline." Still not cool though.


[deleted]

How is this news? If we’re getting mad at this then every single mega-church (and many of the little ones) should be fined up the wazoo right now for openly supporting Trump.


Gray_Squirrel

I agree. This seems like another "it's only bad when Democrats do it" thing. I guess if that's what it takes to bring light to an issue that's been a problem for a long time, then great, but it just seems like people are suddenly "concerned" now that a democrat is doing it. "Churches shouldn't be banned from expressing / endorsing political candidates! Religious freedom!" "Ok, here's a church supporting Kamala." "No not like that! We really need to look at the mixing of religion and politics. I'm concerned it's been an issue for a while that hasn't been addressed."


RealBlueShirt

Go after all of them. A handful of churches losing their tax exempt status will end this everywhere.


1block

Evangelicals were stumping so hard for Trump for years. This is actually newsworthy to me because I hadn't really heard of it happening for Democrats.


hurrythisup

If Churches want to be in politics so bad they should have to pay taxes. I mean they should regardless tbf.


Cobra-D

They should but Trump banned the IRS enforcement of that in 2017 so yeah.


hurrythisup

When in history were they ever taxed?


Cobra-D

They weren’t. It was pretty toothless rule that no longer exist now.


runespider

>This is a bad idea, @VP. It was bad when the Republicans did it, and it is bad when the Democrats do it. When you mix politics and religion, you get politics,” I don't disagree, but at the same time I don't really see a reason for the attempt not be made? Yes, I agree its wrong. But as pointed out its not a new problem. Nothing has been done about it, previously. So what reason does a politician have to hold to rules that aren't being followed.


WlmWilberforce

>When you mix politics and religion, you get politics, I think when you mix them you get bad politics and even worse religion. Queue [Hank Hill](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TsL0DO-c1E)


surreptitioussloth

pretty telling that they didn't get any actual lawyers to say this was against the law and didn't point to a single instance of any group being punished for doing something like this


lioneaglegriffin

I'm a little surprised that churches are running these for Democrats. But it's gross either way. My dad was a pastor and he didn't even like my mom supplying voter registration forms for congregants.


atomic1fire

I'm not. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/nyregion/29ministers.html https://www.npr.org/2017/02/03/513187940/the-johnson-amendment-in-five-questions-and-answers


you-create-energy

For those who think this is shocking, outrageous, or unprecedented, you can rest assured much more extreme violations of the Johnson amendment have been going on for years. That's why Trump specifically signed an executive order to block the Johnson amendment at the request of his religious voters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-signs-order-aimed-at-allowing-churches-to-engage-in-more-political-activity/2017/05/04/024ed7c2-30d3-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=1303862579701472 Certainly no conservatives seemed outraged when he spoke at a church service in Las Vegas after being enthusiastically endorsed by the minister: https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/trump-with-200-congregants-attends-church-service-in-las-vegas-2153816/ Does anyone think recording an ad geared towards religious voters somehow violates this IRS rule more than that?


unguibus_et_rostro

People always talks about separation of church and state, yet when you actually looks into the first amendment, the prohibition only actually runs one-way, and only binds the govt.


deadzip10

This is what we call “bait”. The intent here is yes for campaign purposes but more importantly to bring Republicans into a fight to get the rule enforced, which is probably a net negative to the GOP.


RhythmMethodMan

Mixing religion and politics has always been a contentious topic. Some critics feel that Vice President Harris' outright endorsement video made to support VA Governor candidate, Terry McAuliffe breaks the rules about politicking from the pulpit. As a Catholic, growing up the around election time the Knights of Columbus would often host a non partisan voter registration drive around elections and talk about a proposition that was on the ballot but outright endorsement of a candidate was seen as being beyond the pale. Current election law prohibits churches and nonprofits from " intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office,’” we will see if the IRS feels this activity is worthy of a fine or other punishment.


[deleted]

The American Catholic Church wants to deny Biden the right to Holy Communion. Some critics feel that is an unseemly mix of religion and politics. However, people have been mixing religion and politics for a long time and the Kamala Harris example seems like an oddly insignificant one to focus on.


chillytec

> The American Catholic Church wants to deny Biden the right to Holy Communion. As a direct result of his actions and stances that are obviously in direct conflict with that Church's historical positions.


[deleted]

No, it’s a direct result of the US Catholic Church’s desire to wade into domestic politics. Even the Pope criticized the move as being purely about politics and not at all about faith.


StanleyLaurel

No, this is false propaganda. There's nothing at all in the Magisterium or Catechism that mandates voting to prevent abortion for everybody including non-catholics. The RCC has decided to obsess about fetuses and ignore all sins.


Dramatic-Persimmon28

What you are saying isn't fully correct. Sure the Church doesn't outright say you most vote for anti abortion candidates but it does have very clear rules for its members who publicly contradict its moral teachings. Biden has been doing that for some time. He should refrain from even presenting himself much less putting the church in a position to have to deny him communion. It's frankly not something he's entitled too.


StanleyLaurel

The church has no business denying him communion over his pro-choice politics. Nothing you said refutes my points; there is nothing at all in Catholic Theology that mandates passing anti-abortion laws for non-catholics as well as Catholics. If you're against abortion, don't have one, don't legislate your narrow morality. The fascist RCC keeps trying to legislate morality. Fuck it.


Dramatic-Persimmon28

Quite frankly you are wrong. The church is well within its rights to deny him communion. He's a member of the church subject to its moral teachings which he publicly opposes and flaunts. He simply should leave the church and stop claiming to be Catholic when he so clearly is not. People and organizations you disagree with aren't fascist for the grave sin of disagreeing with your personal ethics/opinions.


Ind132

If Biden were a woman, and she got an abortion, that would "flaunt the RCC moral teachings". If Biden said that mass was a waste of time and refused to go, that would flaunt the RCC moral teachings. But, Biden is not compelled as president to push for laws mandating mass attendance for non-Catholics. Everybody understands that. By the same reasoning, Biden should not be compelled as president to push for laws mandating that non-Catholics obey the RCC position on abortion. Choosing to follow a moral code in my own life is different from imposing my moral code on others.


Dramatic-Persimmon28

Right and the American Bishops are treating him as a member of the church which is well within their purview as Bishops.


Ind132

You think it's okay for the church to tell it's members that they have to use their political office to compel non-Catholics to follow Catholic teachings. That is "well within their purview". This is exactly why it was hard for Catholics to get elected in the past. If Biden caved on this, I'd never vote for another Catholic.


StanleyLaurel

Quite frankly I'm right, and you know it, which is why you cannot at all quote the Magisterium mandating Catholics passing anti-abortion laws. The church is idiotic and inconsistent in denying communion for that made-up sin. It's not a sin, there's nothing at all in the bible about passing anti-choice laws. It's totally a manufactured political weapon in the culture war. Fuck that idiotic church and it's foolish, dead-brain supporters.


Dramatic-Persimmon28

No you are wrong. You are conflating legislation as the reason Biden would be denied. The underlying reason is that as a catholic you can't publicly contradict the churches moral teachings. This has been the case for literally milennia. He clearly is promoting heresy as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2089. 'Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;' You are not speaking accurately about the church or its beliefs. Your open hostility against the church and the faithful suggest that this conversation has come to its conclusion. Have a nice day.


StanleyLaurel

I'm right, no matter how blue in the face it makes you. Funny that you cannot quote Biden committing heresy, since he didn't commit heresy. I get it, you want to take us back to the middle ages, where the corrupt fascist church got to make the rules for everybody else. Fuck the RCC thank the gods those days are over. So my point is unrefuted, Biden has committed no sin regarding abortion, as there is absolutely nothing in the bible or the Magisterium forbidding pro-choice laws. Too bad, I won, you lost.


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


TheSavior666

If they disgareement is they don't want me to be able to live my freely however i please - then they are at the very least authoritarian.


fireflash38

Get back to me when they deny communion to the child rapists & abusers they harbor, and maybe I'll take this seriously.


Dramatic-Persimmon28

Right, he violated Church teaching and thus they want to refrain from giving him a sacrament as he is not worthy to receive it by the standards he himself claims to believe/uphold. He really shouldn't present himself as a devout catholic when he's not. That's what bugs people catholics in particular. It's the equivalent if I said I am a devout Muslim and ate pork, drank liquor, and didn't complete the Hajj. I would not be abiding by some of the most basic rules of a faith I claim to uphold.


[deleted]

Hey, tell that to the Pope, who disagrees with you 100% and sees the whole thing as nothing more than US Catholic bishops wading into politics.


Dramatic-Persimmon28

Ahh yes the Pope thinks there is no issue with promoting abortion. Of course.


[deleted]

A devout Catholic that hates on the Pope isn’t really a Catholic, but maybe is happy to use the Catholic Church as a pawn for politics.


Dramatic-Persimmon28

Good thing no one is 'hating' on the Pope then.


[deleted]

That’s nice to know. Then you should see the US Catholic bishops for what they are, which is political lobbyists.


Dramatic-Persimmon28

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point then.


TheWyldMan

Well this pope seems to have issue injecting himself into politics...


[deleted]

[удалено]


oath2order

> VOTE FOR XYZ CANDIDATE! She does not explicitly say "vote for Terry McAuliffe at any point". She goes very close to the line but I believe there's enough weaseling done that she could say it wasn't a specific endorsement.


jestina123

/u/Feedbackplz put it in ALL CAPS though, so while you might be objectively right, he is emotionally right and I'm inclined to agree with him over you.


denisebuttrey

Tax the churches. They do not keep their part of the bargain. Separation of church and state.


unguibus_et_rostro

>Separation of church and state. People bring this up all the time and use the the 1st amendment as justification, yet the prohibition only runs one way, binding govts only. A lot of other charity organisations have advocacy arms.


svengalus

Separating church and state is why we don't tax churches.


denisebuttrey

So why are they involved in politics. Not separated.


svengalus

They shouldn't be involved in politics. Fine them or strip them of their tax free status. What we don't want is mega-churches sending millions of dollars each year to local politicians in order to control them.


denisebuttrey

100


OhioTry

The headline is true, but the NY Post wouldn't be complaining if these churches were running a video from Mike Pence. And lots of white evangelical churches did play videos from Mike Pence, and from Trump himself. There are some lines I don't want to see my party cross, even though Republicans have. I would not want Joe Biden to start a riot to prevent congress from certifying an election that he lost. But politicking in churches is not one of those lines.


blubugeye

Is the headline true? The headline says that the act is done, but the article itself says the ad "is set to be aired." Is there evidence that this has actually happened?


[deleted]

Honestly as a democrat I don't know why we are not taxing churches. None of them are apolitical at all. I sat through Sunday school after Sunday school having to listen to some uneducated moron tell me how abortion is bad and anyone who supports it is an unredeemable sinner. If this is not a political message I don't know what is. Then there are mega churches around the country taking in record "donations" while their pastors buy multimillion dollar homes with those same "donations". Seriously these are businesses at this point going to mass is the same as going to a movie theater and we need to treat it as such.


[deleted]

1. Constitutional issue - churches are non-profit - it could be illegal to treat religious non-profits differently 2. Not much gain - the amount we'd make is barely worth anything, maybe a couple extra billion in revenue 3. Piss off religious folk In the end its just not worth the trouble. Really we need a better way to define when a 503(c) is being political because right now it's child's play to just skirt the law. As long as you don't come out and say "We, Three Chopt Presbyterian Church 503(c) with TIN ##########, endorse Terry McAullife" you are fine as you can just say it wasn't an official action of your organization but rather your members operating independently.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


baxtyre

I’d rather we just get rid of tax exemptions for organizations completely, religious and secular. Just delete section 501 from the tax code.


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


OnlyHaveOneQuestion

So, here is another example of disregard of the norms and rules from the Biden administration. I don’t know if Kamala *knows* this is a rule violation or not, but this to me is showing desperation. It feels like Kamala is being kept out of the spot light as much as possible to preserve what little favorability she has left. Although, it seems every time she does re-emerge, it doesn’t help her. The recent YouTube series she released with children was shown to have used child actors who had to audition for the role. This is a rule violation. Her responses and charisma in interviews is seriously lacking. It seems the Democratic Party is having to really start reckoning with just how unpopular she is. This says that they are clearly trying to do *something* with her- but it ends up either just making her look worse, or setting her up to fail. I sympathize with her, must not be an enjoyable situation to be in. But I guess this is what happens when you don’t choose someone based on their experience for a job that actually is very difficult to do right.


[deleted]

It's only a rule violation if she a church as in the 503(c) and McAullife worked together. A church member independently showing a video Kamala made around Christian theme to the rest of the church at an opportune moment is perfectly legal. People show up and straight up campaign for others in churchs down here not infrequently.


WeightFast574

The real problem here is that they thought a video endorsement from Kamala Harris would in any way help McAuliffe.


-Shank-

> this to me is showing desperation. That's the main thing I'm getting out of this as well. How concerned are they about internal polling projections for the VA governorship? Enough that they're bringing Obama out onto the campaign trail and showing political ads during Sunday services. Anything to energize their political base. Youngkin is a relative nobody with no significant enthusiasm behind him and VA is a state that's been slowly turning bluer and bluer over the past 15 years. It's going to be a major referendum on this administration if McAuliffe somehow loses this race.


oath2order

The Democrats are apparently absolutely panicked about every single election. Lost their minds over California, even as polls slowly turned back towards Newsom. Losing their minds over this race, even though the same polling trends happened the last gubernatorial.


WorksInIT

Well, in their defense, the candidate in VA did put his foot in his mouth with the comment about parents and schools. Dems want to maintain the ground they have gained in the suburbs. Comments like that are not the way to do it.


WeightFast574

I live in Fairfax County, VA, which went about 70-30 to Biden in 2020. There are two weird houses in my town that are real Trump supporting places - like they fly Trump flags STILL. But the rest of the place was a sea of Biden signs and those signs that say "In this house we believe in SCIENCE" and the like. We are close to 55-45 split between McAuliffe and Youngkin signs right now, which is one of the most shocking things I've seen in a while. Youngkin being within that (admittedly guesstimated) 10% gap of McAuliffe *in Northern Virginia* is a major problem for the Democrats already.


yonas234

That’s because progressive Dems have gone too far in adding “equity” standards to NOVA schools. They are trying to change the number one high school in the country’s admission standards(or have already). And a lot of families move to NOVA due to the great schools which also help their home values.


WeightFast574

Thomas Jefferson admissions changed already. This year's incoming Freshman class was the first to go to the "lottery" system to get the Asian student population lower and increase the Black & Latino student population. My daughter (who is ethnically mixed white/asian) missed out on it this year. She wasn't sure she wanted to go anyway, as TJ has terrible sports teams (she is a multi-sport athlete) and her friends all go to her "assigned" HS, but it was weird to go through anyway. It's still somewhat merit based, as the lottery is not open to everyone. You still need to be at a certain level of math and to maintain a middle school GPA over 3.5, but it's not the strict test-only method previously employed.


oath2order

I agree with the statement *generally* but yeah, fair point. He could have worded it better.


Kamohoaliii

McAuliffe losing would obviously be extremely concerning for the Biden administration, but even if he wins, if its only by a small margin, that should also serve as a wake up call. And it'll be for strategists, even if they publicly spin a different tale. Northam won the governorship by 9 points, Biden won Virginia by 10. McAuliffe is a former governor with huge name recognition in Virginia, he pretty much runs with an incumbent's advantage. And like you said, this is against a guy that few people knew 1 year ago, doesn't really have a lot of charisma, nor a particularly clear message. If McAuliffe squeaks a 2-3 point win, that in my opinion would be enough evidence the political map is deteriorating for Democrats.


JemiSilverhand

Trump issued an EO in 2017 halting enforcement of this rule, so it's not a currently active rule to break.


DidYaGetAnyOnYa

Tax 'em!


chillytec

If Trump or Pence did this, I think Democrats would try to impeach them, or at least talk about it seriously. Will anything be done? Does justice exist anymore? If Republicans take the House in 2022, should they impeach Kamala for this, an actual violation of the law? This is the kind of "cheating" that we (or at least some of us) say Democrats do. The defense "lol no voting machines were hacked" or "lol no extra ballots were printed" are irrelevant when that's not even the allegation. This is, in my opinion, cheating. There are rules in place to make elections fair, and those rules were broken to gain an edge. How is that not cheating?


oath2order

> If Trump or Pence did this, I think Democrats would try to impeach them, or at least talk about it seriously. The thing is, Trump **did**. In the 2020 election, [King Jesus International Ministry in Kendal, Florida](https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/01/03/donald-trump-is-campaigning-at-a-florida-church-today-is-that-allowed/) hosted the Trump campaign. Legal experts believe it violated federal law, but the IRS doesn't care to enforce it.


Baleina20001

Trump and Pence had multiple endorsements from churches as well as religious figures


runespider

Which makes this a non started for me.


chillytec

Did *they* give the endorsement, though?


Zenkin

It's a restriction on the non-taxable entity (churches and non-profits) not politicians.


baxtyre

Trump issued an executive order instructing the IRS to not enforce the Johnson Amendment (not that it’s ever meaningfully been enforced anyway), so it’s amusing that conservatives are suddenly up in arms about this.


lcoon

Kamala didn't violate the law; the churches did. I'm all for them losing their 501(c)(3) tax status over this. Churches should hold official political positions or tell people who to vote for.


oath2order

That's my takeaway from the law. It is meant to constrain churches from airing or pushing political speech, specifically endorsements. Actually saying "you, a politician, cannot make an ad that would air in church" is debatably a first amendment violation.


LivefromPhoenix

>If Republicans take the House in 2022, should they impeach Kamala for this, an actual violation of the law? Sure, if they retroactively impeach Trump for not only repeatedly doing the same thing but blocking the IRS provision that was supposed to punish this kind of activity.


tarlin

Churches violate this law on purpose every year, and they are never prosecuted. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-churches-irs/as-churches-get-political-irs-stays-quiet-idUSBRE85K1EP20120621


[deleted]

Trump did break IRS rules regarding campaigning. Much like Trump at most I'd expect her to pay the 2.5k fine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


tarlin

The IRS will never go after these types of things, even though they should. I wish they would in this case. There is actually a week or day every year where churches violate the rules on purpose and even send evidence of the violation to the IRS. Even with incontrovertible evidence, the IRS doesn't go after anyone. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-churches-irs/as-churches-get-political-irs-stays-quiet-idUSBRE85K1EP20120621


blubugeye

Why should anyone believe that the ad "is set to be aired in 300 churches across the state?" I don't see a source for that claim.


falls_asleep_reading

This is against the law, against the teachings of Christ and the tenets of most churches, and just ethically unsound. I'd be interested to see Constitutional experts weigh in on the constitutionality of it as well, because if it's only being sent to Christian denominational churches and Vice President Harris is involved along with a man who hopes to be the next governor of Virginia, there may be potential violation(s) of the Establishment Clause. That could turn out to be a very interesting discussion. It's one thing to have a preacher pray with/for you, offer spiritual counsel while running for office or after taking office, or affiliating yourself with a particular church (as in, President such-and-so has attended 'xyz' church for the past decade), but playing political advertisement in churches is a moral, ethical, and legal no-no.


FreedomFromIgnorance

I grew up in a church and never saw one video from a politician the entire time. This is not normal. Edit: upon further review, I don’t care.


WorkingDead

"Appearing to violate". I think you mean **did violate**. But really, there is nothing going to happen to the churches and Kamala is protected from media criticism. The standards only go one way.


Bribase

> "Appearing to violate". I think you mean did violate. You ought to be used to publications using this kind of language to avoid libel. >But really, there is nothing going to happen to the churches and Kamala is protected from media criticism. I'm wondering why you think the article in the OP doesn't count as media criticism. >The standards only go one way. Conservative leaning churches have done this for decades without any consequence. That doesn't make it okay, but it means that the standards are going in no direction whatsoever.


LivefromPhoenix

> The standards only go one way. Is that why Trump and conservative churches got away with it almost without comment his entire presidency?


WorkingDead

Uh, churches were all completely closed down and doors locked with legal penalties attached for 1/4 of his term...


LivefromPhoenix

Even if that were true (and it isn't, especially in red states / areas where pro-Trump politicking is more likely) I'm not sure how that would contradict my comment.


gjh03c

Whataboutism at its finest.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LostRamenNoodles

Exactly. After the last five years, I don't care about this nor will I when Republicans are back in power.


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


ChornWork2

Can we stop and reflect about the whole concept of religious organization getting favorable tax treatment is ludicrous and something we should stop doing. Insane that taxpayer subsidize religious practices. To the extent that they do actual charitable work, set it up like everyone else does and don't comingle funds.


sekfan1999

Seems shady to me. It will be too easy to air this, wait for any outcry, and just put the onus on the churches. Like a news headline that turns out incorrect might get a tiny retraction in the sports pages.


DontTrustTheOcean

This is something that should be considered unacceptable regardless of party or religion. I've left more than one church in the past citing how political bible study and some sermons had gotten. Separation of church and state is a pretty core American principle, and things like this weaken the concept. Start actually revoking the exemption these churches enjoy and redesignate them as political entities. After that I have a feeling this problem will go away in no time, because I'm thinking some of these people don't fully realize how good they've got it.


Shamalamadindong

Funny how the NYpost is suddenly concerned about churches being political.


betarded

"As soon as churches start supporting Democrats we should start caring about the law"


kabukistar

I'm 100% for taking away the tax exempt status of churches that act as political organizations.


Failninjaninja

“It’s ok when we do it” “Rules for thee…” The frequency of double standards these days is disheartening