This message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (DonViejo) on Mon Jun 26, 2017, 01:10 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
The Johnson Amendment is the only thing keeping us from sliding into full fascism right now. It's scary to think what megachurches could do if that decision is overturned. And they're coming for it. 
That means non-profit schools and day cares were included. City parks. Public schools. All kinds of organizations that don't pay state taxes. Excluded were for-profit businesses, backyards, and private in-home day care.
Note that you're merging all layers of government into a single, flat structure. It's not. My school taxes are local. The state doesn't see them unless it's a pass-through as part of a robin-hood program. (I'm outside of the Houston school district, which wealthy according to state law and so must pay other districts.)
This is saying those who go to religious day care aren't inferior to those who go to, say, a Montessori day care or town-supported non-profit day care. If you're a non-profit and have a playground for your in-house daycare for employees or those you serve, you're not superior to people who work at an Islamic center or go to a mosque.
It's not saying that religion is superior to government. In a decentralized power structure that the US still largely is, "not subservient to" =/= "superior to". Quite often there are different areas of control for local, state, and federal government and we sometimes like it (when it works in our favor) and sometimes hate it (when it works against us).
Take for example the "sanctuary cities" mess in Texas. Local governments have authority; the state government has authority; the federal government has authority. The state government wants to stipulate that the local government can't opt out of helping the federal government with immigration laws. In other words, it wants to pre-empt the local governments. This would make local government subservient to the state government in that particular respect. Before, it wasn't the case that the local government was "above" the state government: Each had their sphere of authority. I'm not sure if the state, when taking this authority from local governments, is making itself subservient to the federal government: Can the state of Texas as a whole decide not to cooperate with ICE in immigration enforcement? Dunno. (Oddly, I haven't seen that question even asked.)
The reverse situation has more often been defended: The cities get to decide not to cooperate in enforcing federal law, so states and local jurisdictions are "above" the federal government--state and local rights that (D) can get behind. However, states and cities that have passed laws to enforce federal law have been routinely blocked by the courts: When it comes to active enforcement, the federal government calls the shots and is clearly above local and state governments. (Some cities seem to be trying to get around this principle when it comes to international relations for climate control; let's see if the courts are consistent.) Anyway, Texas seems to be trying to make the rule go in both instances: If the feds want to enforce the law, the local government has to help them.
It's the same with environmental, marijuana, and many other kinds of laws and regulations (with three clearly marked levels: local, state, federal).
BTW, most churches and synagogues and mosques don't have all "that much" money. We hear about 5 examples and incorrectly generalize that very non-random, cherry-picked sample over a hundred thousand religious organizations: this is a logical fallacy often called "hasty generalization" or "overgeneralization". Imagine doing that with a racial sub-population: Pick 5 wealthy Latinos and then say they're representative of all Latinos. Some do it with African-Americans: They look at a handful of poor blacks on welfare and generalize over the entire population. Either leads to outrage, but only because we care about minority rights and treating them fairly or more than fairly. But even a valid generalization ("blacks on average have a lower median income than whites"
which we then apply to each individual is called a "stereotype". Continue the "blacks on average" valid generalization where it can't logically go and you get, "therefore Barack Obama's family income is lower than the median for whites". They're at least in the top 5%.
Yikes, from a forum host..
