Does the USA have an Evangelical Christian problem we need to deal with?

[OneViewpoint]

Remove their tax exemption, audit their tax compliance, and jail the ones who violate separation of Church and State?

Yes!

Of course!

We should have done this 250 years ago!

[OlderAndWiser]

1. If a particular group of churches are violating the requirements to maintain 501(c)(3) status, then those churches should be dealt with accordingly. Revoking the tax exempt status of all churches makes no sense.

2. The separation of church and state is a doctrine that applies to governments, not private individuals and non-governmental entities. And people who violate that doctrine are sometimes the subject of an injunction, but no one goes to jail for such a violation. Apparently, you don't understand constitutional law.

3. Churches engage in a multitude of activities to benefit their communities and especially the poor people in their communities. Take away the tax exempt status and churches will have less money to do those things that benefit needy people.

4. Apparently, you hate churches. This is your right. Ranting about it and making silly suggestions just makes you look silly.

[OneViewpoint]

Apparently you don't understand that the Constitution does not prevent laws enforcing the Separation of Church And State. So let's get a statute on the books with some teeth in it.

And what sort of naive child are you? Or what sort of naive child do think the rest of us are? Leave the door open for any religious entity to buy politicians and it will happen. The scumbags will just close down on Friday and reopen under another brand on Sunday. Why does any religious entity need to buy politicians? Let them influence their believer's vote. That's it.

[OlderAndWiser]

Being convinced that you are right does not actually prove that you are right.

Separation of church and state prohibits government from promoting any one religion as the state-approved religion. Don't admit it, but you don't understand the law on this subject at all.

[OlderAndWiser]

Are you a lawyer? I doubt it.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Didn't Engel v Vitale, Abington v Schempp, and McCreary County v ACLU all determine that it worked both ways saying, respectively, that prayer, reciting Bible verses, and displaying the ten commandments in schools violated church vs state and had them removed from schools?

It wasn't until recently where Republicans have gerrymandered their way into power that state supreme courts have gone back on these rulings and started reinforcing these things for Christian teachings but not other religions.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 You and OneViewpoint are both missing the point of my argument. He wants church people thrown in jail for violating the separation of church and state, but that doctrine only prohibits certain actions by the government; it does not in any way regulate what private individuals may do in their private lives and it does not prohibit what they may do publicly. I can openly advocate for making my church the official church of the government with impunity.

What would a church person do to violate the separation of church and state?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

I disagree that church goers should be thrown in prison for violating church and state doctrines. That's barbaric.

My point is that those rulings didn't just say church vs state applied to governments only. It also applied to religions being practiced in schools. There are way too many religions being isolated by evangelical christians who want to "advocate" for their religion to be the only one practiced in schools. Either let them all in and teach children ALL religious practices or keep all religion out of school and let them learn normal course work like math, science, and reading/writing.

I would say it would be hard to find something specifically that an individual could do short of enacting a policy unilaterally for a school without legal backing and so for that, I agree with you.

I think you are missing part of his, and all of my point that the doctrine was already determined to work both ways, not just to governments interfering with religious institutions.

In the end, it's immoral, and in some cases still illegal for one religion to be forced into schools and these states who are trying to force the issue are straight up wrong.

[OneViewpoint]

And you are determined to ignore the fact that doctrine and statutes are two different things.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 The government operates the schools and churches can do nothing without the government approving it. If the Church of Fried Chicken On Tuesday Nights wants to be taught in public schools, that decision is the responsibility of the schools/government, not the church.

Separation of church and state says that the GOVERNMENT cannot favor one religion over another. It's really that simple. The church can make the request to be taught in the schools every single day, and there is no violation; if the school say "okay, fried chicken church," the SCHOOL has violated the separation of church and state.

[OlderAndWiser]

No, I am determined to ignore your ignorance of the law. You obviously have never had any training in the law so your ignorance is neither surprising not an impeachment of your character.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

So, basically what I said then, aside from the cases I stated where it said that religion should be removed from schools because religion was interfering with the state as well?

As I said, schools pushing a single religion is immoral and in some cases, straight up illegal. Evangelical christians are fighting to push ONLY their religion to be taught in schools.

If the school board unilaterally makes that decision then those individuals comprising that school board have violated the established precedent.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 Yes, that law applies to the government, not private citizens. Private citizens can ask for what they want and it is up to the government to say "no."

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Which is OVP's point. Evangelical Christians are forcing their way into politics to force/buy their religion down everyone's throats which, as i said, is immoral.

No religion should have tax exempt status by the way.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 What distinguishes churches from other 501(c)(3) organizations?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

You are telling me that mega churches where the pastors have private jets and refuse the poor deserve a tax exemption? How about ones that have abused children are they exercising "charitable or non private benefits"? The catholic church for YEARS covered up sexual abuse scandals. Why should we give them a tax exemption?

Religious purposes should have never been added to that.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 So you also believe that Planned Parenthood should not have tax-exempt status because they did some clearly immoral and illegsal things.

Deal with any organization sufficiently large and you will find some elements that have drifted from the purpose of the organization. That does not mean that the organization has abandoned its primary purpose.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Sure. You remove all religious organizations tax exemption status and I will trade you planned parenthood's tax exemption status.

And I am sure you will be ok with the Church of Satan and other religions adding their religious doctrines in schools while we are at it? Let's advocate for equality since that seems to be the point you are trying to make in your post.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 No, you have COMPLETELY missed the point. I do not advocate for ANY church being part of a public school curriculum. I am only trying to correct your misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation of church and state.

But if you want to assume that I mean something different just so you have something to criticize. . . go for it!

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

I was referring to your removing of religious tax breaks for planned parenthood's. Equality. Eye for an eye so to speak. If someone wants to advocate for Christianity to be taught in schools then we should ALL be advocating for everyone religion to be taught for the sake of equality.

And im not sure you've completely addressed the cases i brought up that show that there have been cases that say it works both ways, not just government staying out of religion, but religions staying out of state

Please don't get frustrated and shut down on me now when things have been amicable up to this point. If you don't wish to continue, just say so. Don't act like I'm putting words in your mouth when I am not.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 Things working the other way is based upon churches losing their tax exempt status for doing things that not within the ordinary realm of a traditional church, like campaigning for a political candidate, and that is based on the statutes which provide for limit the scope of organizations that can have 501(c)(3) status; it has nothing to do with the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. And NO ONE in the government goes to jail for violating the separation of church and state; they merely get an injunction issued forbidding them from whatever they are doing that is wrong.

I would say that it is okay to teach about religion in schools, because it is a part of our history, and you can teach ABOUT religions (history, culture, humanities) without advocating that one religions is the right religion. I know that there are some nuts who profess to be Christian who want to impose their beliefs on others, but they do not speak for the overwhelming majority of traditional Christians.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Those cases were about requiring prayer in school, reciting Bible versus or displaying the 10 commandments not about churches losing their tax exempt status for doing things that break 501 c 3 rules. Could you please review those cases specifically? Im just saying that it applies both ways in the separation of church and state based on those cases.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 Those cases were about churches forcing schools to require prayer, etc., or they were about the schools on their own promoting that? And did the cases say that the churches must stop doing something, or that the schools must stop doing that?

[OlderAndWiser]

Give me the name of a case and I'll look at it.

[Danzigdawson]

They are America's cancer.

North America's equivalent of the taliban.

[OneViewpoint]

Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Nazis, White Supremacists, Isis, Kach and Kahane Chai, Jewish Defense League, and Evangelical Christians...

All are different flavors of the same stupidity and insanity. All of it rooted in Abrahamic religion.

[Horsegirly2001]

Separation of church and state?

You mean violate the 1st ammendment and discriminating against Christians because you dislike their beliefs?

Sounds like Nazi Germany.

[OneViewpoint]

But it's fine for Evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church to live off taxpayers while using tax free donations to buy politicians and establish Christianity as a national religion while excluding Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, etc. who are all also taxpayers subsidizing your Christian religious bigotry? Nah, that doesn't work for me.

No one is violating your 1st Amendment rights if we take away your taxpayer funding girly. You can believe in whatever magic invisible sky fairy makes you feel safe at night. But you cannot use taxpayer money to squash other people's rights to do the same stupid shit. No religion gets tax free status. No Jesus money in politics. You can vote your values. So can the rest of US citizens.

It's hilarious that in your mind other people have protections under the law constitutes discrimination against your batshit crazy religion. That is a special kind warped thinking. You people really cannot tolerate a level playing field for anyone else. You need a protected space for White Christian racists or else you are being "persecuted".

[Horsegirly2001]

Thats exactly the rhetoric the nazis made.

Any donations made to any church has already been taxed.

If Christianity becomes a national religion it will be done democratically.

You've no problem with muslims discriminating against Christians, jews, hindus, seiks, Buddhists and others in muslim countries.

[Horsegirly2001]

Your argument falls apart when you realise that 45% of Christians in America are non-white. 85% of black Americans are Christians and the majority of Hispanics are catholics so by advocating for the persecution of Christians in America you are advocating for the persecution of most minorities just like Hitler.

[OneViewpoint]

Another warped and spurious argument from your religious brain. What the hell does US domestic policy have to do with any other country? We are not citizens of those countries. We can't vote there. We have exactly zero control over them and feel exactly zero impact from their choices.

You still don't get it. The Constitution specifically forbids any religion dominating any other religion due to any assistance by intervention or lack of intervention of government. YOU PEOPLE are exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent from ever happening. No, you cannot vote your stupid religion into existence as a state sponsored religion and claim it's democracy at work.

[OneViewpoint]

And your brain falls apart when you confuse racism with religion. So you're a racist too huh? Thanks for self identifying.

[Danzigdawson]

@horsegirly2001 Bad Faith (2024) — Watch it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Faith_(film)

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

@horsegirly2001

They fail to understand that the democratic force in which they're supposedly in favor of is just working against them. The first amendment is working exactly as intended. Ensuring that a progressive and immoral ideology doesn't take root.
Force is the defining factor. What they're actually advocating for is the ability to ratify the Constitution to make it more authoritarian.

Or, perhaps they do understand what they're attempting to do, which is an attempt to misrepresent their motivations. In which case, they can GTFO.

[Horsegirly2001]

The constitution guarantees religious freedom whether you like it or not.
If people democratically decide something one way or the other and you dont like it you have to suck it up.
I noticed you dropped the white supremacy angle, is that because you and Hitler share similar beliefs?

[Horsegirly2001]

@Ariesman81Nshiiit agreed. They'd turn it into another version of communist Russia

[Danzigdawson]

@horsegirly2001 It guarantees religious freedom but it also prevents the church or any other religious organization from ruling the state.

And it doesn't allow for one religion to rule over all others. That's a pretty big part of what religious freedom means.

[OneViewpoint]

@Danzigdawson ,

These people are literal morons.

[OneViewpoint]

@Danzigdawson ,

US Evangelical Christian Nationalism is a disease of disloyal traitors to this country.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

@OneViewpoint

Did your CNN tell you that? Quran? Or is your narcissism just being triggered? Just trying to figure out what morality you're using to justify your claims of superiority.

[Horsegirly2001]

@Ariesman81Nshiiit yes notice he only targets Christians

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

@horsegirly2001

They claim atheism but underneath is just anarchy. Daddy issues as far as I can tell.

[OneViewpoint]

@Ariesman81Nshiiit ,

Sorry Captain Denial but Daddy Issues are the domain of the people who need a Magic Invisible Sky Fairy to come save them from everything they fear and do not understand. Which is pretty much everything in life. You literally worship a fictional Sky Daddy. And you're blind to your own hypocrisy.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

@OneViewpoint

I'd say call your Dad but I keep forgetting, you don't have one.

[Horsegirly2001]

@Ariesman81Nshiiit Trump is his Daddy now.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

@horsegirly2001

Get back on your horse

[NathanDavis]

most problems we have... we don't shit about it

this would be just one more

and the ones who do shit about it the most are those who are like "we need to deal with it"

[DonaldDarko]

We have a communist problem first and formost. Also a slight Muslim problem.

[Danzigdawson]

@DonaldDarko Quite. There are not enough of them.

[DonaldDarko]

@Danzigdawson IQ is dropping with immigration maybe they'll be more commies.

[Danzigdawson]

@DonaldDarko The average IQ in the US is undoubtedly very low but immigration can only help to raise it up —at the very least— to the level of the world's most mediocre nations. Bringing what you call "commies" in will also help improve the nation's collective intelligence.

[DonaldDarko]

@Danzigdawson we need more Cubans.

[Danzigdawson]

@DonaldDarko You can't, due to the embargo. Those from the Dominican Republic are packed with shredded leaves inside instead of hand-rolled ones. Not as good. Don't be fooled by US-owned trademark rip-offs.

[DonaldDarko]

@Danzigdawson Guess we need actual Cuban people to make them here.