Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

You say it isn't enforceable, but it is. There's even a specific IRS form for reporting a 501c org for engaging in political activity. Back during my euphoria days I even saw people who were pressured into attending a malignant church be advised to fill one out in secret.

If this does come to pass, it'll be interesting to see how America's churches react. They've whined about "militant secularists" for a long time just because people won't listen to them. But if they actually want to stop getting their toes wet and wade into the shitstorm of politics? It'll be poetic justice when they're co-opted, bleached out, and left as just another grafted on skin tag of the political machine.

It's not remotely enforceable. It's always been the very picture of "trust government discretion in who we investigate", but instead of the government, it's the friggin IRS.

[smjjames]

You say it isn't enforceable, but it is. There's even a specific IRS form for reporting a 501c org for engaging in political activity. Back during my euphoria days I even saw people who were pressured into attending a malignant church be advised to fill one out in secret.

If this does come to pass, it'll be interesting to see how America's churches react. They've whined about "militant secularists" for a long time just because people won't listen to them. But if they actually want to stop getting their toes wet and wade into the shitstorm of politics? It'll be poetic justice when they're co-opted, bleached out, and left as just another grafted on skin tag of the political machine.

It's not remotely enforceable. It's always been the very picture of "trust government discretion in who we investigate", but instead of the government, it's the friggin IRS.

There's a difference between 'legally enforceable' and 'is actually enforced with teeth'.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Trumpcare is Obamacare 2.0 and expect some 'that's not a bug its a feature' type possibilities.

Its hardly a bill rounding up people into gulags.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You say it isn't enforceable, but it is. There's even a specific IRS form for reporting a 501c org for engaging in political activity. Back during my euphoria days I even saw people who were pressured into attending a malignant church be advised to fill one out in secret.

If this does come to pass, it'll be interesting to see how America's churches react. They've whined about "militant secularists" for a long time just because people won't listen to them. But if they actually want to stop getting their toes wet and wade into the shitstorm of politics? It'll be poetic justice when they're co-opted, bleached out, and left as just another grafted on skin tag of the political machine.

It's not remotely enforceable. It's always been the very picture of "trust government discretion in who we investigate", but instead of the government, it's the friggin IRS.

It's exactly as enforced as the FCC broadcast content rules, which also relies solely on citizens to report violations. That churches engaged with politics are very, very careful to do things like only giving out "issue lists" instead of endorsing a candidate demonstrates they are aware of the line they can't cross.

[Lord Shonus]

You say it isn't enforceable, but it is. There's even a specific IRS form for reporting a 501c org for engaging in political activity. Back during my euphoria days I even saw people who were pressured into attending a malignant church be advised to fill one out in secret.

If this does come to pass, it'll be interesting to see how America's churches react. They've whined about "militant secularists" for a long time just because people won't listen to them. But if they actually want to stop getting their toes wet and wade into the shitstorm of politics? It'll be poetic justice when they're co-opted, bleached out, and left as just another grafted on skin tag of the political machine.

It's not remotely enforceable. It's always been the very picture of "trust government discretion in who we investigate", but instead of the government, it's the friggin IRS.

Never forget that the line between "politics" and "not politics" can be very, very fuzzy. A classic example of such is the pastor of a black church preaching about combating racism - is this a political speech or is it the sort of inspirational guidance that you expect to hear in a church?

The value of the churches-shall-not-involve-themselves-in-politics rule was always as a symbolic barrier between church and state. It had little to no practical effect.

[Neonivek]

The value of the churches-shall-not-involve-themselves-in-politics rule was always as a symbolic barrier between church and state. It had little to no practical effect.

There is a genuine and practical effect but to see that you have to go through the magical annals of history.

Where political entities would often co-op religious organizations for their own purposes, basically turning that church into their mouth piece. This was EXTREMELY common and that without going into creating a state religion.

Essentially it means that the Republican Party cannot fund/create a Church that will tell or require people to vote for the Republican party.

As I said before the Separation of Church and State exists far more as a way to limit the state than to limit the Church

So yeah a lot of symbolic barriers seem pretty symbolic if the problem they fix no longer exists because of it.

[redwallzyl]

their is a danger for religion with getting to mixed up it politics. the Church is inevitably corrupted by it and become associated with government failings.

[Neonivek]

their is a danger for religion with getting to mixed up it politics. the Church is inevitably corrupted by it and become associated with government failings.

The danger is typically the other way around.

That politics gets mixed up in Religion and corrupts Religion to its own end.

The value of the churches-shall-not-involve-themselves-in-politics rule was always as a symbolic barrier between church and state. It had little to no practical effect.

There is a genuine and practical effect but to see that you have to go through the magical annals of history.

Where political entities would often co-op religious organizations for their own purposes, basically turning that church into their mouth piece. This was EXTREMELY common and that without going into creating a state religion.

Essentially it means that the Republican Party cannot fund/create a Church that will tell or require people to vote for the Republican party.

As I said before the Separation of Church and State exists far more as a way to limit the state than to limit the Church

So yeah a lot of symbolic barriers seem pretty symbolic if the problem they fix no longer exists because of it.

Also I am REALLY hoping I am not going to need to post a source because I'd think this kind of crud would be common knowledge by now. I mean the UK is chalked full of the reasons why this rule exists (Religious Requirements for entering government, a State Church, Discrimination based on religion, Using a religious institution to support a political entity)

[Telgin]

Trumpcare is Obamacare 2.0 and expect some 'that's not a bug its a feature' type possibilities.

Its hardly a bill rounding up people into gulags.

No, but it is being told that 24 million more people will lose health insurance over the next few years as a result, smiling, nodding gently and still voting yes to it.

The alternative is to hear that, frown grimly, step back and evaluate other options.

Actually, just so I'm not misrepresenting what happened, that number of uninsured still stands doesn't it?  My understanding is that the proposed bill isn't much different from the previous one and they rushed it through without getting new estimates.  If that's true, presumably those people would still lose coverage.  Comments on Fox News's website seem to confirm this is the case, or at least I assume that's the meaning of "lol you can't trust the LIBERAL CBO to do the math."

[Rusty Shackleford]

Trumpcare is Obamacare 2.0 and expect some 'that's not a bug its a feature' type possibilities.

Its hardly a bill rounding up people into gulags.

No, but it is being told that 24 million more people will lose health insurance over the next few years as a result, smiling, nodding gently and still voting yes to it.

The alternative is to hear that, frown grimly, step back and evaluate other options.

Actually, just so I'm not misrepresenting what happened, that number of uninsured still stands doesn't it?  My understanding is that the proposed bill isn't much different from the previous one and they rushed it through without getting new estimates.  If that's true, presumably those people would still lose coverage.  Comments on Fox News's website seem to confirm this is the case, or at least I assume that's the meaning of "lol you can't trust the LIBERAL CBO to do the math."

Is this about Medicare or Medicaid? or something? Who are they taking off these programs? I don't understand where that 24 million figure comes from and I can't find anything saying why that's the case no matter where I look.

[Draignean]

Trumpcare is Obamacare 2.0 and expect some 'that's not a bug its a feature' type possibilities.

Its hardly a bill rounding up people into gulags.

No, but it is being told that 24 million more people will lose health insurance over the next few years as a result, smiling, nodding gently and still voting yes to it.

The alternative is to hear that, frown grimly, step back and evaluate other options.

Actually, just so I'm not misrepresenting what happened, that number of uninsured still stands doesn't it?  My understanding is that the proposed bill isn't much different from the previous one and they rushed it through without getting new estimates.  If that's true, presumably those people would still lose coverage.  Comments on Fox News's website seem to confirm this is the case, or at least I assume that's the meaning of "lol you can't trust the LIBERAL CBO to do the math."

Is this about Medicare or Medicaid? or something? Who are they taking off these programs? I don't understand where that 24 million figure comes from and I can't find anything saying why that's the case no matter where I look.

Look harder?

How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums, Courtesy of the CBO

Use the google, Luke. Feel its power course through your veins.

[TheBiggerFish]

@Neonivek: Chock full, not "chalked" full...

[Rusty Shackleford]

Trumpcare is Obamacare 2.0 and expect some 'that's not a bug its a feature' type possibilities.

Its hardly a bill rounding up people into gulags.

No, but it is being told that 24 million more people will lose health insurance over the next few years as a result, smiling, nodding gently and still voting yes to it.

The alternative is to hear that, frown grimly, step back and evaluate other options.

Actually, just so I'm not misrepresenting what happened, that number of uninsured still stands doesn't it?  My understanding is that the proposed bill isn't much different from the previous one and they rushed it through without getting new estimates.  If that's true, presumably those people would still lose coverage.  Comments on Fox News's website seem to confirm this is the case, or at least I assume that's the meaning of "lol you can't trust the LIBERAL CBO to do the math."

Is this about Medicare or Medicaid? or something? Who are they taking off these programs? I don't understand where that 24 million figure comes from and I can't find anything saying why that's the case no matter where I look.

Look harder?

How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums, Courtesy of the CBO

Use the google, Luke. Feel its power course through your veins.

the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015,

Okay that isn't exactly the bill that was passed into law just recently, but rather a bill that died long, long ago. So what are we talking about, exactly?

[Telgin]

Here's a more recent analysis, which is from the first Trumpcare proposal I believe: link.

The results are similar and for similar reasons.  Doing away with the individual mandate would mean that a lot of people would no longer get insurance, which would in turn cause premiums to increase due to health insurers shifting costs to the fewer people who do get insurance, which in turn causes some of them to stop getting it due to costs.

There are other reasons listed in the analysis, linked to changes in subsidies and Medicare expansion.  I'm less versed on the details of those, so I'll just trust the CBO report.

[Telgin]

Thanks, fixed it in my post as well.  Very strange syntax problem with the quotes.