Latest news with #politicalendorsement
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Village People Reacts After President Trump Shares ‘Offensive' AI Video of Fake Obama Arrest Set to ‘Y.M.C.A.'
Village People previously gave Donald Trump the green flag to use 'Y.M.C.A.' in his campaign efforts, but a recent video featuring the song shared by the president may have just crossed a line in the eyes of the disco group. Shortly after the POTUS shared a fake, AI-generated video on Truth Social of former president Barack Obama getting arrested while the band's iconic 1970s hit plays in the background, Village People shared its thoughts on the matter in a joint statement to People on Monday (July 21). 'While we don't want 'Y.M.C.A.' to be used for political endorsements of any kind, President Trump merely sharing a video containing our song does not meet the standard for copyright infringement,' the members said. More from Billboard Sheryl Crow Slams 'Immoral' President Trump in New Protest Song 'The New Normal': Stream It Now Djo Scores First Airplay Chart No. 1 With 'Basic Being Basic' Druski Announces Coulda Fest Tour Featuring BigXthaPlug, Young M.A & Soulja Boy: See the Dates 'However, we will attempt to find the original person or entity who posted the offensive video featuring President Barack Obama, and have such video taken down as not being endorsed by Village People, nor any of the owners of the copyright,' the group added. In the controversial video, digital renderings of Trump and Obama sit together in the Oval Office. As faux FBI officers suddenly come into view, the twice-impeached chief of state smiles unnaturally while the Democratic politician is handcuffed and carried out of frame. The clip — which also features a montage of Democratic party leaders repeating the phrase, 'No one is above the law' — then cuts to AI-generated shots of Obama standing behind bars, wearing an orange jumpsuit. The former president has never been arrested, though the sitting POTUS is a convicted felon. This isn't the first time Trump has platformed misleading AI-generated content. Last August, he shared false images that led supporters to believe that Taylor Swift had endorsed him for president, something the pop star later rebuked while throwing her support behind Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. Much like the AI materials he's shared, 'Y.M.C.A.' has also become a hallmark of Trump's second term in the White House. The billionaire often used the track at his events and rallies leading up to his 2024 election win, and — despite previously requesting that he stop — Village People has signed off on his affinity for the song. 'The Trump campaign knew they had obtained a political use license from BMI and absent that license being terminated, they had every right to continue using Y.M.C.A.,' founder Victor Willis said in a December statement on Facebook. 'The financial benefits have been great as well as 'Y.M.C.A.' is estimated to gross several million dollars since the President Elect's continued use of the song. Therefore, I'm glad I allowed the President Elect's continued use of Y.M.C.A. And I thank him for choosing to use my song.' The following month, Village People performed 'Y.M.C.A.' at the president's pre-inauguration rally in Washington, D.C., where Trump joined the band members and danced along on stage. Best of Billboard Chart Rewind: In 1989, New Kids on the Block Were 'Hangin' Tough' at No. 1 Janet Jackson's Biggest Billboard Hot 100 Hits H.E.R. & Chris Brown 'Come Through' to No. 1 on Adult R&B Airplay Chart
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
IRS says churches can now endorse political candidates. Miami faith leaders weigh in
The Internal Revenue Services is reversing a long-standing policy and will now allow religious institutions to endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status — a move that has divided faith leaders and advocacy groups. Earlier this month, the IRS sided with the National Religious Broadcasters, an evangelical media group, and two Texas churches in a court filing intended to settle a lawsuit that challenged a ban on most nonprofits from endorsing political candidates in elections. While most Americans, according to multiple public opinion polls, want to keep politics out of the pulpit, many conservative Christian groups, including the ones named in the lawsuit, have been pushing for more freedom for faith leaders to voice opinions — a view repeatedly advocated by President Donald Trump throughout his time in office. Many advocates and faith leaders in South Florida who spoke with the Miami Herald remain strongly opposed to the decision, fearing raising such issues threaten to create rifts within individual congregations. But while conservative Christian groups have been most outspoken in support of the move, it also could work both ways, allowing more freedom for progressive churches and leaders to advocate for issues that straddle the line of religion and politics. The lawsuit argues that the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 measure named after its author, former President Lyndon B. Johnson, restricts churches from exercising freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It also contends that the amendment is not enforced fairly — allowing some nonprofits, such as newspapers, to endorse candidates while others are banned. During President Donald Trump's first term in 2017, he vowed to 'get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.' While, the IRS didn't go that far, it did suggest that when a house of worship 'in good faith' speaks to its congregation through 'customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services concerning electoral politics,' it did not constitute participation or intervention in politics, as the Johnson Amendment prohibits. In a proposed consent judgment between the tax agency and religious groups, the IRS said those types of communications are akin to 'a family discussion,' and 'do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' according to the proposed settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Texas. The IRS, in its court filing, also admitted that the Johnson amendment has not been consistently enforced since it was enacted, despite the fact that churches throughout the country violate it on a regular basis, according to a 2022 investigation from the Texas Tribune and ProPublica. The proposed settlement could have broad implications for political rhetoric in places of worship. WhiIe it applies specifically to plaintiffs in the lawsuit, advocacy groups and faith leaders who spoke with the Miami Herald are concerned it sets a precedent that will embolden other houses of worship to engage in partisan endorsements. 'It's a slippery slope and I feel like this is crossing the line. This is definitely crossing the line,' said Rabbi Gayle Pomerantz, senior rabbi at Temple Beth Sholom, a Reform synagogue in Miami Beach. 'Endorsing a candidate outright from the pulpit can lead to divisiveness and alienation within our congregations,' said Rev. Keny Felix, the senior pastor of Bethel Evangelical Baptist Church in Miami Gardens. 'Weaponizes religious freedom' Interfaith Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates for religious freedom and against Christian Nationalism, said the lawsuit 'weaponizes religious freedom.' 'They talk about free speech and religious freedom, when in reality what keeps our houses of worship free for religious communities is the separation of church and state,' said Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, vice president of programs and strategy at Interfaith Alliance. 'Imagine if every church in Florida was just an outpost of the GOP or the DNC, that would be a complete denial of religious freedom. It would destroy institutions that are sacred to so many Floridians.' Graves-Fitzsimmons, who is also an ordained Baptist deacon, pointed out that current law already allows houses of worship to engage with politics in many ways. For example, faith leaders can invite candidates to speak with their congregations as long as they provide equal opportunity to all parties. Many houses of worship host events encouraging members to vote — Souls to the Polls is an important event in many Black churches, for example — and some churches are polling places themselves. Nonprofits and churches are even allowed, under current law, to donate to campaigns on certain issues or ballot questions that align with their mission, as long as it is not a partisan race. The Catholic Church donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-abortion efforts to defeat a recent ballot question in Florida, for example. Local faith leaders weigh in 'I am absolutely taken back by that ruling,' said Rev. Laurie Hafner, lead pastor at Coral Gables Congregational United Church of Christ. Hafner's church has been on the front lines of advocating for issues some might see as political. In 2023, the church partnered with local bookstore, Books & Books, to organize a protest march against Florida's recent efforts to ban certain books in public schools. In recent years, she made national news for suing the state of Florida over its abortion ban on the grounds of religious rights. Hafner said after a close call with the IRS at her past church in Cleveland, she's been careful about how she speaks about political candidates from the pulpit. Still, she said, most of her congregants know where she stands politically, due to her strong stances on issues. 'I have never from the pulpit endorsed a particular candidate, although I think I make it very clear what side I'm on,' Hafner told the Miami Herald. 'And that's the side of the oppressed, the hungry, the homeless, the folks who are in prison, the immigrant … and certain candidates are a reflection of those values.' 'I don't know if this is going to change my position about endorsing the candidate from the pulpit, but it does give me a little more freedom, I think, to express myself if need be,' she said. Others expressed their disapproval over the IRS statements. 'I am strongly opposed to abolishing the Johnson Amendment,' said Rabbi Pomerantz, who was also the first female president of the Rabbinic Association of Greater Miami. 'I think it's helped to preserve the separation of church and state, and we at Temple Beth Sholom have always been very careful about promoting our Jewish values in non-partisan ways,' she said, referring to the Johnson Amendment. Pomerantz said her synagogue does not endorse candidates or advocate for issues in the name of Democrats or Republicans. She said, however, Temple Beth Sholom may take a position on an issue — like reproductive rights for example — informed by Jewish tradition and Jewish texts. 'We'll always have members of the congregation who don't agree with the position the synagogue has taken. But we feel it is our right and our duty to take positions on meaningful issues, in a non partisan way.' Concerns about endorsement Miami Gardens pastor Felix said he agrees with encouraging members to participate in the political system but draws the line at candidate endorsements. 'We have to be careful to not conflate God's kingdom with any one political party or candidate. If we do, our efforts will eventually prove to be misguided,' said Felix in an email to the Herald. Felix said he believes that pastors are responsible for 'providing moral leadership and clarity' on issues impacting the community — which may sometimes include advocating for justice and speaking 'on behalf of the marginalized and the underrepresented.' 'What unifies a diverse congregation is our common faith, not our political affiliation,' said Felix. Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said one of his main issues with the IRS ruling is that it potentially can 'corrupt' institutions that have always remained non-partisan. 'Part of what makes them spiritually pure is that they stay non-partisan,' Pesner said. 'They're about values, morals, deeply held beliefs … but when money starts flowing into religious institutions to win partisan battles and elect individual candidates, it corrupts those institutions.' Pesner's concern about the potential for the decision to interfere with campaign finance was also echoed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 'Weakening this law would undermine houses of worship and nonprofits by transforming them into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money,' the group wrote in a statement. Faith leaders 'can move the needle' One advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, took steps last week to reverse the decision in the lawsuit by filing a motion to intervene. The nonprofit, which advocates for the separation of church and state and religious freedom, said the decision 'would grant favor and privilege to religious organizations and treat them differently than secular nonprofits.' 'The Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics,' said AU President and CEO Rachel Laser in a statement. Laser went on to say that the Johnson Amendment 'protects the integrity' of elections and nonprofit organizations, including houses of worship. Many who spoke with the Herald pointed to recent polling that shows that most Americans want to leave politics out of the pulpit. According to a 2022 poll from Pew Research Center, 77 percent of U.S. adults said churches and other congregations should not make political endorsements. Majorities in both the Democratic and Republican parities and every religious group that was polled also said churches should avoid political endorsements. On the other hand, the National Faith Advisory Board, a faith coalition founded and led by Paula White Cain, senior advisor to President Trump in the newly established White House Faith Office, celebrated the move by the IRS, calling it a 'tax clarification' that was 'born out of faith leaders advocating for their God-given rights.' 'It is a crucial reminder that faith leaders can move the needle when it comes to influencing the law of the land. Our collective voice matters,' the organization wrote in a weekly newsletter. The newsletter also went on to advise its readers to avoid 'paid ads, public rallies hosted by your church and using church resources to endorse a candidate to the public.' The faith advisory board was founded during Trump's first presidency by White and says it communicates with over 70,000 faith leaders across the country. This story was produced with financial support from Trish and Dan Bell and from donors comprising the South Florida Jewish and Muslim Communities, including Khalid and Diana Mirza, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners. The Miami Herald maintains full editorial control of this work.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pulpits unleashed: Churches no longer bound by IRS gag rule on politics
Florida houses of worship can now endorse political candidates in some cases, an exception created by the IRS recently that reversed decades of legal precedent preventing churches from involvement in politics. The Internal Revenue Service's position came from a July 7 filing meant to end a lawsuit from the National Religious Broadcasters association last year, who argued that a provision in the U.S. tax code infringed on First Amendment rights to speech and religious expression. That provision, known as the Johnson Amendment and covering what are called "501(c)(3)" nonprofits, banned tax-exempt organizations from political participation, like issuing endorsements or opposing candidates. The IRS's joint filing with the religious groups instead says political discussions "from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services" isn't interfering with political campaigns, but instead is similar to a "family discussion concerning candidates." This decision empowers churches in Florida to endorse political candidates, although that is not entirely new in the state's faith landscape. Often, political candidates would speak at churches and would mobilize religious groups to get involved in campaigns related to important issues to their congregation. In 2024, former Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign aimed to mobilize Black churchgoers to turn out to vote in "Souls to the Polls" initiatives in battleground states. Before last year's election, Gov. Ron DeSantis also turned to faith groups to stir opposition against ballot initiatives that would have enshrined abortion rights and recreational marijuana in the state's constitution. The governor turned to his faith and community initiative to mobilize religious groups, and his administration worked with Mat Staver to oppose the abortion amendment. Staver is chairman of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit law firm and Christian ministry that advocates for religious freedom of expression. Staver lauded the president in a statement following the joint ruling, saying President Donald Trump "pledged to eliminate the Johnson Amendment and allow our pastors and churches to speak freely and without fear of retribution." "The Trump administration has now agreed to unshackle the pulpit from the chains of the Johnson Amendment," Staver said. It's not unusual for churches to get involved in discussions about contentious policy issues, namely abortion. When DeSantis campaigned against the abortion amendment, he went to City Church Tallahassee, which says on its website that it maintains a "conservative theological position." Thomas Wenski, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Miami, said many churches, despite these rules about political endorsement, would endorse candidates and wouldn't have a problem. The Archdiocese of Miami wouldn't do that, however, Wenski added. Although the church says its opinions on contentious topics in ballot amendments, Wenski said it wouldn't endorse political candidates because "a Catholic would feel homeless in either party at this point." Earlier this year, Wenski spoke at a Catholic mass in Tallahassee attended by the governor and reminded those in attendance that even "the migrant is not a stranger," quoting Jesus, and he thanked DeSantis for speaking out against the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion. He added: "The church doesn't endorse political leaders. That's a fool's errand to do that." This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: In Florida & elsewhere, churches can now endorse political candidates
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
IRS Rules Churches Can Endorse Candidates. A Progressive Pastor Says That's Great
Donald Trump's administration is giving churches a green light to explicitly endorse political candidates, without fear of losing their nonprofit tax status, under a proposed court settlement. And a leading figure on the Religious Left insists that's a good thing for Democrats. The Internal Revenue Service — now led by controversial Trump appointee and X enthusiast Billy Long — proposed a 'consent judgment' last week, seeking to settle a court case brought by Christian broadcasters. The IRS seeks to effectively exempt churches from the Johnson Amendment, a federal law that bans tax-exempt groups from politicking. The proposed settlement states that 'communications from a house of worship to its congregation… on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.' The document likens endorsements from the pulpit to 'a family discussion concerning candidates.' Some progressives are sounding the alarm that this ruling will transform houses of worship into a political powerhouse for the MAGA GOP, which relies on evangelical Christians as its base. But Doug Pagitt, a progressive evangelical pastor and executive director of Vote Common Good, argues that ruling provides much needed clarity — and could actually give progressives a desperately needed boost. The Johnson Amendment has long been a phantom menace. It remains on the books, but has been all but unenforced against churches, either purposefully or passively, for decades. This has led to 'wild imbalance,' Pagitt says, with right-wing churches becoming integral to Republican politics, while most mainstream and progressive church-leaders have abided by the (dead) letter of the law — contorting themselves to remain at arms length from anything to do with elections, lest they imperil their tax exemption. 'For too long, Republican politicians and their allies have spoken freely from pulpits, while too many Democrats and faith leaders held back, worried they would cross an invisible line,' Pagitt says. 'This decision removes that roadblock.' The pastor insists Democrats and progressives now have a chance to level the playing field with voters of faith — but acknowledges that doing so will force both the center-left political establishment and progressive church leaders to get out of their comfort zones. Pagitt spoke to Rolling Stone by phone. The transcript that follows has been edited for length and clarity. How did you get involved in politics? I've been an evangelical pastor my whole adult life. I come from that small, dwindling, little wing of the evangelical world that's called progressive evangelicalism. I got into this in 1983, when there were still a bunch of Jimmy Carter evangelicals; I wax eloquently about how in 1976 and 1980, 60 percent of evangelicals voted for a Democrat from Georgia. My faith motivates what I do and the way I think about politics. And it doesn't end me up in the MAGA world. What is the mission of Vote Common Good? We connect with faith voters who are thinking about their political and their religious identities. Many Christian faith voters have a religious identity that came as a package deal, which ended up with them becoming Republicans. People went to church to follow Jesus and ended up voting for Republicans every time — and they don't know how that happened. Then when someone like Donald Trump comes along, people are like, I didn't think that's what we were saying 'Yes' to. But they watched as the Republican Party and their faith communities went down the road in lockstep. We know that doesn't fit a lot of those people. They're not sure what to do about that. We help those voters connect their faith identity, and consider voting for Democratic candidates. How long have you been active? Since 2018. We do bus tours and events with Democratic candidates — introducing them to faith voters and faith leaders around the country. We've worked on hundreds of campaigns. We did events with [now governor] Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania. We did a bunch of work with the Harris campaign. We work with about 40 or 50 congressional candidates per cycle. Your argument that the IRS ruling could be a good development for Democrats is not intuitive. How do you see it? There has been this wild imbalance where Republicans speak about faith issues and faith voters all the time. Democrats rarely do. Republicans have organized almost exclusively under religious identity — so much so that the 2024 Trump campaign used an evangelical religious group, Turning Point USA, as their on-the-ground organizing. Republican candidates will go to churches. Democratic candidates will — if they're Black churches. But rarely will they find themselves organizing in any other church context, or any other faith community organized around synagogues or mosques or temples. And that's always been done under the guise of: Well, the IRS laws say that religious communities have to be politically neutral. And there's no way to be politically neutral if you're going to talk to a candidate. Republicans have never had that problem. Republicans are just wildly running the table on this stuff — having absolutely no issues at all. The Johnson Amendment has only been an obstacle, then, but only for one side? The IRS became the rationale for the dividing line. I hear from [progressive] pastors and faith leaders all the time: All my conservative counterparts, they talk about politics and tell the people who vote for. But we follow the law. And they're just lawless. Progressives and conservatives have been telling two different stories about what the Johnson Amendment implications are, because the IRS has not been clear about it. And now that they have been clear about it, it really creates an opportunity for Democrats to be able to talk to faith voters. And for faith leaders to be open — if they choose — to talk about politics. Maybe to host a forum at their church, or have a political talking group, or let a candidate come in and meet some people in their church without feeling like they're somehow running afoul of the law. So mainstream churches have been so afraid of jeopardizing their tax status they not only won't endorse Democratic candidates, but won't even invite them to speak? A lot of pastors are not even willing to show up at a public meeting supporting a candidate, because they're so afraid. We deal with this all the time. The kind of kabuki theater that churches have had to do is almost comical. In a lot of Black churches, you'll see a separate part of the building that's the community center. And you could talk about politics over there, because that's run by a separate entity of the church. But you can't do it in the church. It's ridiculous. Or we did an event at a church in New Hampshire. This is a Sunday night — it wasn't a church time. The pastor said, OK, and I'm going to give the welcome. But you have to rent the building with a rental contract — so you're an outside rental group at the church. Which is fine. And the pastor gave the welcome and said, I want to be clear that I'm giving my welcome from down here on the floor and not up there on the platform where the pulpit is, because when I'm standing up there, I'm in my church capacity, and when I'm here on the floor, I'm in my personal capacity. And you're just like, Come on. It's silly. But that was his workaround. He was just trying his best to find some way to not violate the law. Pastor Jeffress [conservative megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress] doesn't have that concern. He's not worried about where he's saying it! Or anything else! So they've been running [around] basically saying to America, Republicans love religion, Democrats hate God. And the last 30 years, Democrats have basically said, We have no argument with that. Democrats seem institutionally ill prepared for the opportunity you're describing. We've been in a situation in which Democrats rarely want to speak about faith voters or even identify or understand faith voters. In 1992, the Democratic [tracking] system removed 'faith identity' from the voter file, even organized by faith tradition. If Elie Wiesel was right that the opposite of love is not hate, it's apathy, the fact that Democrats don't even know, or care, or think about this is a real problem. We've worked really hard to try to help Democrats overcome their fear and phobia of faith voters, and help faith voters overcome their fear and phobia of Democrats. Because it's not good for politics. It's not good for religion. Pastors feel it. Parishioners feel it. Political parties feel it. In other words, Republicans have a food addiction when it comes to religion, and Democrats have an allergy. And we'd like to see, we'd like to see both of them have a healthier relationship. Anything that can get us greater parity and conversation about political and religious identity, we think would be a very good thing. You're confident Democrats can fish for votes in the pews? Ninety percent of Black church attenders vote for Democrats, while 80 percent of white evangelicals vote for Republicans. But the difference in the faith between a Black church member and a white evangelical, it's not very great. In fact, Black churches are sometimes more conservative socially, theologically, but they'll vote for Democrats. We think a lot of Democrats could really benefit from this [new opportunity to communicate with faith voters.] A big percentage of people who vote for Democratic presidential candidates are white Christians. Nearly 70 percent are religious people overall. Literally, the base of the Democratic party are religious people, and are white Christian people as well. But inside the Democratic Party it's like, We've never even heard of these people. We don't know who they are and how are they living in America. It's the strangest thing. We just released a big poll on Christian voter identity, and 80 percent of Christian voters have said they're open to voting for a Democrat, including 40 percent of people who have never voted for a Democrat in their life. We know there's a real opportunity here. To play devil's advocate on this. I reported during the campaign on Trump joining a Christian nationalist broadcast promising to roll back the Johnson Amendment. To the extent that churches more explicitly become the GOP's turnout machinery, no holds barred, that could really deepen their advantage. It could. But I think there's going to be all kinds of blowback. The churches that were already comfortable endorsing, despite the lack of clarity the Johnson Amendment, were doing it anyway. There is about 20 percent of the religious community where that's hard-wired into their political identity — and they're going to run wild. But their clientele is only so big. There's a lot of conservative Republican pastors who've been doing a wink-and-nudge of endorsement. They don't say anything from the pulpit, but they put out a voter guide, and it all hints in one direction. But they don't ever have to own it. They're not going to be able to skate so comfortably down that road. In working with faith voters, we meet people all the time. They're like, I've gone to this church for six years. I had no idea they were wanting me to vote for Trump. I wouldn't have stuck around if I knew that. We never talked about it. And then there was all this implication that came right at the last minute. And there are a lot of conservative pastors that didn't want the Johnson Amendment to be clarified for churches in this way. They're like, Oh, you gotta be kidding me. Now I'm going to have that person in my church say, flat out, 'Why do you not endorse Ron DeSantis for President?' Right? This is going to create more openness, more honesty. It's just going to clarify the relationship between pastors and their parishioners. Our politics and our religion in America could use more honesty, could use more openness, and could use more clarity on issues like this that matter. Folks are pointing to this ruling as a further collapse of the wall between church and state. Does that trouble you? We do a lot of work to try to stem Christian nationalism. We are deeply afraid of that. Some Republicans think that there's no way to be Christian without being a Christian nationalist. And some Democrats think there's no way to be talking about faith without also becoming Christian nationalists. Those things are not the same! There are Christian nationalists. They are a real problem. We need to respond to them. But that doesn't mean you should just take the near 80 percent religious identity of America that is Christian, and say: Don't talk about it. Ignore it. It has not worked well for Democrats. And anything that gets us to a place that lessens the disadvantage that is faced by Democrats is a good thing. What about your faith tradition leads you to believe the Democrats are a natural fit with religious voters? The particular movement from the hyper-neocon conservatives, through the Tea Party, now into MAGA — that whole continuum has become toxic in its narrative about the American people's relationship with one another. It's pitting people as good guys and bad guys, and patriots and enemies, in a way that is just really volatile. Not only to the American story, but really to the Christian story — as people try to recognize that loving one another is essential, whether that be with your neighbor, or your enemy, or yourself. We ask candidates and voters to consider making a love-in-politics pledge. If people come from the Christian tradition, we ask them to look at the section on love from the book of First Corinthians. Love is patient; love is kind; love is gentle; love is self control. And we say, if you see any of that in the current political movement on the Republican side, then feel free to vote your conscience. And if you don't? Don't feel that somebody's forcing you to do that because of some version of your faith. Look, religious people don't vote for Donald Trump because they think he's like them. They vote for Donald Trump because he keeps telling them that he likes them. Democrats keep saying, We don't even recognize you. And that's that's the problem. The problem for Democrats is not about policy, because most religious people don't think a lot about policy. It's about identity and where you feel welcomed. And Democrats seemingly work really hard to try to say to religious people, We don't care one bit about your religion. Give us your vote. But please don't think about how religious you are when you're doing it. It doesn't make a lot of sense. More from Rolling Stone Speaker Mike Johnson Splits From Trump, Calls for Release of Epstein Files How Texas Bullied Big Banks Into Dropping Their Climate Commitments What Trump Has Said About Jeffrey Epstein Over the Years Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The IRS lets churches preach politics — and keep the tax break
Under the Trump administration, the Internal Revenue Service just changed a decadeslong ban on places of worship and other tax-exempt groups from advocating for a political candidate. That means church leaders now have the right to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without risking tax-exempt status. What does this mean for separation of church and state? The change in IRS code came after a lawsuit tried to challenge the Johnson Amendment, a longstanding principle of separation of church and state that exists to prevent religious organizations from functioning as de facto political PACs, which are financed through tax-deductible donations. The legal provision was named in 1954 for Lyndon B. Johnson, then a Texas senator years before he became a U.S. president. Previously, the law prohibited charities and churches from engaging in political campaign activity by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one 'which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.' The case was brought against the IRS and its commissioner, Billy Long, by the National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America, and two Texas churches, challenging the guardrails the Johnson Amendment has on 'their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, their Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law and equal protection under the law, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.' The IRS made its decision in response to the lawsuit on Monday, stating that '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,' within the ordinary meaning of those words.' It also said that it does 'not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.' Responses to the news were mixed, as some saw the shift by the IRS as desecrating the name of religion for political gain, while others viewed it as a fight against oppression that congregations faced when trying to teach biblical teachings to understand modern-day political issues. The National Council of Nonprofits stated in a press release that allowing churches to endorse political candidates 'assaults' the idea that nonprofits should remain nonpartisan. 'This action — long sought by President Trump — is not about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws. The decree could open the floodgates for political operatives to funnel money to their preferred candidates while receiving generous tax breaks at the expense of taxpayers who may not share those views," Diane Yentel, President and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, said. 'These institutions are among the last trusted spaces where individuals can come together across political lines to address community needs. Repealing or weakening the Johnson Amendment risks politicizing these spaces, undermining their integrity, effectiveness, and the public's confidence in them.' Some political leaders, including Republican South Carolina Rep. Mark Harris, said on social media that the IRS should never have had the right to 'infringe' on Americans' First Amendment rights. Doug Andersen, a spokesperson for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, told the Deseret News that the church remains firm in its stance of neutrality. 'We're a global organization, along with appropriate individual member engagement,' Andersen said, emphasizing the political neutrality and participation policy for the Church that states it does not 'Endorse, promote or oppose political parties and their platforms or candidates for political office' or 'Allow its Church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for political purposes,' etc.
