Search Results: religion

Return to the Land, an ethnonationalist organization, has established a whites-only settlement in Arkansas and plans expansion into Missouri. The members forming this "white people only town" say its to protect benefit and act as a stronghold for the white race of americans in the United states, that they apparently don't see it as being anything bad..

Welll being not white and born in the southern united states, all my life, I never seen how white people honestly anywhere in the south, or in america in general, being oppressed in any way. Historically there's only ever been white people having the lucky upper hand at every point of their life.

Just for a little example let's take the time black people did try and build a successful community. Just 1 state away. In Tulsa Oklahoma, It was called "Black Wall Street" it was made of a community of black owned businesses that actually thrived in the early 1900s. It didn't keep out anyone based solely on their race or LGBT status or beliefs. It was a community that welcomed everyone. But not long after it was seen as being successful. The Tulsa Race Massacre happened in 1921. All because some white residents that lived near it didn't like seeing blacks being able to have a successful self sustained community.

Now a days most Maga would claim this is just woke bullshit that shouldn't be taught in schools. But they're just wrong this is what happened and for some the only way some people would even hear about it is from the history books or a black person that remembers the events happening, even I didn't know about it until I heard it from my dad.

Look what I'm saying is it's not bad to just build a community. But when you actively push out people based solely on their skin, religion, or LGBTor immigrant status then thats just not fair and not right. Frankly it goes against what america has valued for the past 120 years.

But what do you think? Good thing or a bad thing?

Gift article - no paywall

https://wapo.st/460F7O0

IRS says churches should be allowed to make political endorsements

The IRS said in a new court filing that clergy and houses of worship should be allowed to make political endorsements, a potential move away from a 71-year-old tax policy that curtailed the fusing of religion and politics.

Banning tax-exempt nonprofits — including congregations — from participating in political campaigns violates the First Amendment’s protection of the right to the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, IRS Commissioner Billy Long said in a court filing Monday in a Texas federal court case.

Nonprofits should be allowed to make political endorsements and not lose their tax exemptions, the IRS said in the court filing. Religious congregations, the filing said, are like families, and their internal communications should not be deemed “participation” in a campaign.

“When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate[s]’ nor ‘intervene[s]’ in a ‘political campaign,’” according to the filing.

“First Amendment rights don’t end when a pastor, church member or even a political candidate steps on the platform of a church,”.

Others said changing the policy would further pollute U. S. politics.

“Permitting synagogues and other houses of worship to endorse or oppose candidates undercuts the integrity and unity of these religious institutions, turning them into an extension of political candidates or parties,”

“This decision fails to recognize the realities of modern spiritual life and could expose clergy, including rabbis and cantors, to unjust scrutiny as they fulfill their sacred duty to teach, guide, and inspire,” the statement said.

i hate religion wars/atheism wars

i hate politic wars

i hate race wars

i hate gender wars