I never thought I would agree with Trump on anything, but…here we are.
1 Like
Once he says that about all churches and religions, I’d consider it to be agreement. Until then, it just seems like petty bullying of a specific target, not a clear policy position.
Cults should be illegal, but all religions should lose tax exempt status.
4 Likes
Not in terms of tax policy 
So, I don’t really have strong opinions one way or the other on the tax churches thing. But I do remember from a while back, there was definitely a line of thinking among atheists that non tax exempt churches would also mean that churches could outright dictate how to vote and that that would be bad, and so removing their tax exempt status would not accomplish our goal (whatever that was).
Is there any truth to that and if so, should that inform our opinions as to whether or not churches should be tax exempt?
1 Like
I’d say it depends. So long as the religion in question follows all the proper rules related to non-profits, they should have the same tax benefits as other non-profits, including tax exempt status. However, I agree that religions shouldn’t get any extra benefits that aren’t afforded to other, secular non-profits.
Well, I’m not a tax attorney or accountant, but I believe for any non-profit to have tax exempt status, it needs to be apolitical. I remember a while back when donating money to the ACLU, they said that I couldn’t claim it as a tax deduction because it was a political organization, despite also being a non-profit.
For me it seems like first amendment issue. As far as I can tell, churches get a lot of benefits for nothing more than being churches, despite other non-profits having to jump through hoops.
I have no problems with churches being politicised in terms of saying who should vote for what, as the reality is they are super political already.
A cult is a tiny religion, so 
.
There’s got to be a better term for those.
For cults?
I mean, Amway et al are closer to cults than businesses…
In theory, maybe, but that’s never really enforced.
I mean, it’s really just…It’s not even subtle, but conservatives actually don’t care so none of that matters I guess.
2 Likes
2 Likes
On the one hand, I have no problem with someone who does ghost hunting as a hobby. Yes, I could argue on how skeptical the hunting is (i.e. someone who tries to find non-paranormal reasons for spooky things going on instead of insisting it has to be paranormal), but I’m sure all of us at some point probably went to visit some sort of spooky place just to see what the big deal is. I also admit that I used to find ghost hunting TV shows to be something of a guilty pleasure to watch, despite no actual belief in the paranormal.
The more important matter is that he’s never tried a case and the fact that the ABA found him not qualified.
1 Like
To add another disqualification to Brett Talley, apparently he forgot to disclose that his wife works for the Trump Administration.
Failing to disclose something on a Senate questionnaire seems to be a reoccurring theme in this administration.
1 Like
Also basically a requirement to be hired in it. So I’d say the odds are in his favor.
2 Likes
Not a ban, but it’s something.
1 Like