this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
575 points (99.0% liked)

politics

28220 readers
2454 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hey Mr President! I represent evangelicals, televangelists and scientology like Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, David Miscavige, etc.

We collectively call you out as a raping pedophile piece of shit living specimen who wouldn't dare come after our tax-free status. FUCK YOU!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tetragrade@leminal.space 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Muh freeze peach

[–] Zier@fedia.io 136 points 1 week ago (1 children)

All religions need to be taxed like the businesses they are.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 10 points 1 week ago (8 children)

The problem with this is that there's no profit to tax.

I hate religion as much as the next guy but taxing a non-profit charity is nonsensical.

What you actually want is:

  • To discontinue any tax concessions for employees of the church.
  • Ensure benefits that employees receive are taxed.
  • Restrict religious organisations from conducting business-like activities: if they have a cafe then its profit should be taxed
[–] Zier@fedia.io 37 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Mega-churches make massive profits.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 8 points 1 week ago (7 children)

You mean massive cash surpluses.

All that cash is legally required to be spent in the course of the churches objectives, which in almost all cases will be the furtherance of religion.

That means, the minister is restricted from using that money for personal things like holidays or boats or whatever.

Yes, mega churches provide celebrity ministers a lot of perks. Thats why I said this area needs stronger restrictions.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

This is categorically untrue. Hiding profits doesn't mean they don't have them. That's just fraud. The mormon church, for example, has trillions invested.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 56 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Kenneth Copeland

Trump is evil, but this man remains the only person I’ve seen I’m convinced is an actual demon. Video of him sets off my fight or flight response so hard.

[–] unnamed1@feddit.org 17 points 1 week ago

True. He does make people believe in spiritual things. Haunting, evil, possessed things.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Honestly, churches should have always stayed the fuck out of politics or lose their tax exempt status. Of course, that rule does not apply to the weepy Republicans, because the rules never do. They cry about "religious freedom", but want their cake and eat it, too, of course: the most radically right wing churches can say whatever the hell they want regarding telling their people how to vote and we all get to fund it, effectively.

Having the cake and eating it too is not an option for liberal churches, though.

[–] HermitBee@feddit.uk 34 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Honestly, churches should have always stayed the fuck out of politics or lose their tax exempt status.

Churches should never have had tax exempt status.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

honestly im not sure anything should have. You can deduct expenses so theoretically non for profits should not pay much anyway.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

they’d still have to pay various payroll taxes and things, and they still buy things: tax exemption in australia for example means you neither have to charge GST (our version of VAT) to customers, and you get to claim it back from any purchases you make

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

yeah but im not sure that is a bad thing. They would also pay property tax. In the us sales and property tax mostly pay for real world community things that need to be done and are shared resources. Infrastructure and services basically. I don't see why a non for profit should not pay into that the same as for profits. I don't think charities will disapear if they have to deal with the same rules every individual has to and if they do they likely were scams or something.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

i’m not a member of a church, i’m very atheist, but also i kinda put churches around the same place as sports clubs… they’re largely non-profit entities that exist for the benefit of members… kinda like a co-op too

i think given that - ie their mission isn’t based around making money, but providing free services - it’s fair to put them on the same level as other membership-based orgs

all of these orgs have a “not for me” crowd, but just because it’s not for you doesn’t mean that they don’t provide services to their members in the same way that sports clubs, maker spaces, car clubs, youth clubs, etc all provide things and shouldn’t be taxed in addition to the income tax that their members already pay

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 6 days ago

I might be missing your your point buy yeah as I said all not for profits so I indeed would like them all treated the same. regardless of church or club. I don't see why a club shouldn't pay taxes in addition to the tax their members pay when I pay tax in addition to my income tax for all the goods and services I use myself. I mean why can't I be a club of one and get the benefits. Its all not for profit in the same way to me.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Might be a good post for /c/LeopardsAteMyFace

How did religious people ever think he wasn't just wrapping himself in the garb of piety to get elected? He was on tape talking about grabbing women by the pussy because 'when you are famous they just let you do it'! Before the LAST time he was elected. Sheesh.


And... Scientology, on the issue of tax exempt status, really? Wow. Criminals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The most religious of people seem to defer critical thinking to their leaders because it makes their brain too hurt to do so. They just want to be told what to do and what to think.

[–] itistime 2 points 6 days ago

There are at least a couple groups:

  1. Those who believe that not suspending their disbelief will invite the devil into their hearts. They fear letting doubt in.
  2. Those who go to church for social connections. They fear not fitting in, or being pushed out.
  3. “brain too hurt”
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The churches that would call him out are likely the same few that actually do something to deserve their tax exempt status, like feeding the homeless.

[–] fishy@lemmy.today 12 points 1 week ago (5 children)

No churches deserve tax exempt status. Why the hell should we rely on their kindness to feed the homeless when we can tax them and ensure the poor are fed?

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

By that logic, charities should not be tax exempt either. I agree that charity isn't the ideal solution to poverty, hunger, homelessness, etc. and we should be funding social welfare to solve those problems, but in the meantime people who are working to alleviate these issues should not be tax burdened. I don't like the religious exemption, but the 501(c)(3) exemption as a whole is a good thing.

[–] btsax@reddthat.com 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

There's an argument to be made that charities and other 501c3 organizations both entrench capitalism and normalize its failures to care for marginalized people, and/or that they also mostly exist to provide the wealthy with tax breaks through which they can fund pet projects, bypassing any democratic processes and ignoring what society actually needs.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FrChazzz@lemmus.org 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

As we predicted! I'm a priest in the Episcopal Church and at our recent clergy conference we were made aware of a letter being issued by a large number of our bishops, to be published in one of the big papers, denouncing ICE (it was distributed to us this past Saturday, but I have no idea if it's shown up in one of the papers or not). We discussed the possibility of Trump getting mad and revoking our tax exempt status because of it. Dude is quite predictable lol.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I hope you all spite this evil bastard and not give in

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 58008@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Is there some way we can make this more likely to occur? Maybe some AI videos of clergy calling him a shitty-pantsed child molester with small hands and short skyscrapers?

Seriously. Look, the piece of shit is in the oval office already, that ship has sailed. But we might actually have a good use for the cunt in this case. Let's make the most of it!

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 week ago

Do it, coward

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 19 points 1 week ago

He is correct that churches shouldn't be exempt from taxes, just not for his reasons. They are tax shelters for political tools, and should be made into taxed businesses if they insist on being money making machines.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh please let him actually do it. It would be one of the only positive things to come out of this toxic festering dung heap of an administration.

[–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Unfortunately, it will only be the helpful and tolerant ones. TST, UU, Episcopal, etc. The worst will be supported and amplified.

[–] itistime 2 points 6 days ago

amplified

It would not surprise me if he started appropriating our taxpayer dollars towards them.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 week ago

I'm all for ending the tax exemption for cults but using it as leverage not to have people speak out against you? Such a DICKtator move.

[–] GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

He just might accidentally do one good thing.

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Had me in the first half

[–] itistime 14 points 1 week ago

He will only attack orgs that are against him. This will lead to the loss of many different kinds of 501(c)(3) organizations with good missions and actions. This is a continuation of dismantling current institutions, and silencing dissent.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I share Thomas Cromwell’s views on churches so please make this happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hey Mormons!!!!! What do you think of Trump?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

He only has one trick, bully.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

All churches in America need to start praying for Donny’s demise, show us what your god can do…

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Seriously...

Wow 😮 Really coming full circle fucking around threatening a church's tax exemption status because you don't like free speech. If he wasn't just a fucking dumbass narcissist, I would almost think he's being clever, but there is no way.

The religious right movement was born when the federal government took away the tax exemption status of Bob Jones University for refusing to desegregate. This would become the first (but certainly not the last) major case argued in court by the new right against the federal government on the grounds of religious freedom.

I really have to wonder if sometimes his sycophants give him really bad advice on purpose because they think it's funny that he's always too dumb to get the joke until it's too late to take it back.

Or maybe not and the fabric of reality has just torn. Heritage Foundation. The moral majority. Ronald Reagan. Donald Trump. Project 2025. This is literally where it all started:

The real origins of the religious right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review.... Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

On June 30, 1971, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued its ruling in the case, now Green v. Connally (John Connally had replaced David Kennedy as secretary of the Treasury). The decision upheld the new IRS policy: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, properly construed, racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the Federal tax exemption provided for charitable, educational institutions, and persons making gifts to such schools are not entitled to the deductions provided in case of gifts to charitable, educational institutions.”

Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening. The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders , especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. Falwell was furious. “In some states,” he famously complained, “It’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”

One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.

Although Bob Jones Jr., the school’s founder, argued that racial segregation was mandated by the Bible, Falwell and Weyrich quickly sought to shift the grounds of the debate, framing their opposition in terms of religious freedom rather than in defense of racial segregation. For decades, evangelical leaders had boasted that because their educational institutions accepted no federal money (except for, of course, not having to pay taxes) the government could not tell them how to run their shops—whom to hire or not, whom to admit or reject. The Civil Rights Act, however, changed that calculus.

Bob Jones University did, in fact, try to placate the IRS—in its own way. Following initial inquiries into the school’s racial policies, Bob Jones admitted one African-American, a worker in its radio station, as a part-time student; he dropped out a month later. In 1975, again in an attempt to forestall IRS action, the school admitted blacks to the student body, but, out of fears of miscegenation, refused to admit unmarried African-Americans. The school also stipulated that any students who engaged in interracial dating, or who were even associated with organizations that advocated interracial dating, would be expelled.

The IRS was not placated. On January 19, 1976, after years of warnings—integrate or pay taxes—the agency rescinded the school’s tax exemption.

For many evangelical leaders, who had been following the issue since Green v. Connally, Bob Jones University was the final straw. As Elmer L. Rumminger, longtime administrator at Bob Jones University, told me in an interview, the IRS actions against his school “alerted the Christian school community about what could happen with government interference” in the affairs of evangelical institutions. “That was really the major issue that got us all involved.”

Weyrich saw that he had the beginnings of a conservative political movement, which is why, several years into President Jimmy Carter’s term, he and other leaders of the nascent religious right blamed the Democratic president for the IRS actions against segregated schools—even though the policy was mandated by Nixon, and Bob Jones University had lost its tax exemption a year and a day before Carter was inaugurated as president. Falwell, Weyrich and others were undeterred by the niceties of facts. In their determination to elect a conservative, they would do anything to deny a Democrat, even a fellow evangelical like Carter, another term in the White House.

The Bob Jones University case merits a postscript. When the school’s appeal finally reached the Supreme Court in 1982, the Reagan administration announced that it planned to argue in defense of Bob Jones University and its racial policies. A public outcry forced the administration to reconsider; Reagan backpedaled by saying that the legislature should determine such matters, not the courts. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case, handed down on May 24, 1983, ruled against Bob Jones University in an 8-to-1 decision. Three years later Reagan elevated the sole dissenter, William Rehnquist, to chief justice of the Supreme Court.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›