The problem is, individual preachers within ministries are choosing war or rather violating the social contract, often by inciting violence (which is against the law in the US, though not enforced when large public figures do it.)
We can’t presume that all religion, or even all religious people are this way. Also we don’t have to. Churches are obligated to avoid political speech if they want to preserve their tax exemption. The George W. Bush administration stopped enforcing this law, and the IRS was defunded to cease investigations, but they’re getting a budget again.
So yes, anytime some minister suggests someone vote a certain way, or argues an unconstitutional policy, report them to the IRS. Some actions have already been taken, and we all would love some of that megachurch money coming back into the general fund.
Is this the no true Scotsman fallacy? If they’re christofascists, they aren’t American (or even buman)? Or are just saying you’re okay with what they’re doing, but it’s being done by the wrong side?
Seems like that would go against free speech and assembly clauses.
Those were a peace agreement, and religion chose war instead
The problem is, individual preachers within ministries are choosing war or rather violating the social contract, often by inciting violence (which is against the law in the US, though not enforced when large public figures do it.)
We can’t presume that all religion, or even all religious people are this way. Also we don’t have to. Churches are obligated to avoid political speech if they want to preserve their tax exemption. The George W. Bush administration stopped enforcing this law, and the IRS was defunded to cease investigations, but they’re getting a budget again.
So yes, anytime some minister suggests someone vote a certain way, or argues an unconstitutional policy, report them to the IRS. Some actions have already been taken, and we all would love some of that megachurch money coming back into the general fund.
When either of those things use established currency or receive tax benefits in real estate deals, they are in violation of the First Amendment.
Also, not allowing socialist or leftist commentary on any media outlet is a violation of free speech rights.
Okay, so are you for or against the first amendment. Because first you say you want to violate it, then you complain when it’s violated. Pick a lane.
Christofascists do not have First Amendment rights; they are in direct violation of it. Are you also against First Amendment rights?
Is this the no true Scotsman fallacy? If they’re christofascists, they aren’t American (or even buman)? Or are just saying you’re okay with what they’re doing, but it’s being done by the wrong side?
No, it’s a simple reading of the First Amendment.