Speaker 1: Five oh one C three status means that nonprofit organizations
Speaker 1: cannot get involved in certain ways in politics. Does a
Speaker 1: new policy exempt church clergy members from that very rule?
Speaker 1: EJ's here to discuss.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 3: Senator James Langford, who is known for pro is real,
Speaker 3: anti abortion, and borderline racist stances, wants the Johnson Amendment,
Speaker 3: an amendment made to keep charities and churches of politics
Speaker 3: scrap as he believes it infringes upon the free speech
Speaker 3: of passers. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, it's a
Speaker 3: bid to chisel away at the non existent barrier between
Speaker 3: church and state. The story is from The Friendly Atheist
Speaker 3: by hement Meta on the April fourteenth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know, when it comes to the effort
Speaker 1: to do away with the Johnson Amendment, it's actually not
Speaker 1: overturning an amendment per se, but.
Speaker 4: It's just an attempt to introduce.
Speaker 1: A new bill to revise what the IRS says five
Speaker 1: oh one C three organizations are allowed to do. I
Speaker 1: understand stood that correctly. The thing that I have a
Speaker 1: problem with here is that Lankford actually admits that this
Speaker 1: effort is not even really neededj What what is he
Speaker 1: talking about why why go through the trouble to make
Speaker 1: revisions to an IRS role that restricts political involvement from
Speaker 1: five to one or political support from five o' one
Speaker 1: c three nonprofit organizations?
Speaker 4: Why do that? If it's if it's useless. What's he
Speaker 4: talking about?
Speaker 3: Well, I feel part of it is because churches get
Speaker 3: away with so much, whether it's covering up assaults that
Speaker 3: we were talking about, uh with the Catholic Church, controlling
Speaker 3: towns as you tend to find in places like a
Speaker 3: Mormon communities, or even in some cases violating key legal
Speaker 3: documents that the constitution. Chances are if it's illegal, the
Speaker 3: church has done it and got away with it, which
Speaker 3: is a what IM president, hopefully not holding out much
Speaker 3: hope we don't see continued in the future. That is
Speaker 3: an upside though, if they get rid of the Johnson Amendment,
Speaker 3: or at least they appeal some of it and allow
Speaker 3: five to one C three charities to be more vocal,
Speaker 3: it means that some charities can gloves off and speak
Speaker 3: their mind, which may not work out so well for
Speaker 3: folks like Central Langford because not all five one C
Speaker 3: three charities are churches. Some of them are charities focused
Speaker 3: on helping people get better lives, and not all of
Speaker 3: them would agree with a lot of the things that
Speaker 3: he is very vocalist.
Speaker 1: Well, we have the nonprofits are part of a five
Speaker 1: oh one c three nonprofit organization in the atheist community
Speaker 1: of Boston, and I don't agree with probably many of
Speaker 1: the things that Langford supports. And so if he sets
Speaker 1: a precedent for us to speak our minds a little
Speaker 1: bit more fluidly, I would welcome that. But you know, Rob,
Speaker 1: getting back to the idea of this bill not even
Speaker 1: really being necessary, is there any substance to it, and
Speaker 1: does it make a difference at all?
Speaker 5: It depends on what you mean by what level of
Speaker 5: substantive it is. Because actually within the bill now, like
Speaker 5: he has already admitted that the point is to remove
Speaker 5: barriers from pastors being able to say things that they
Speaker 5: would otherwise not be able to say, because they're saying
Speaker 5: that like the irs is targeting them and that's simply
Speaker 5: not true, and he knows it. Pastor Josh Blevin's, for example,
Speaker 5: of the Grace Calvary Chapel in Missouri is like on
Speaker 5: video literally just saying vote for this person. They're not
Speaker 5: going to do anything to us. So it's like they
Speaker 5: already don't respect the rules, so substantially, no, there's nothing
Speaker 5: in there because like they're already not being targeted. However,
Speaker 5: I came into this discussion being like, they need to
Speaker 5: stop it because they need to follow the rules. And frankly,
Speaker 5: you've like immediately compelled me.
Speaker 4: It should pass.
Speaker 5: And then since they're already not following the rule, it
Speaker 5: actually just opens everyone else up to do the thing
Speaker 5: they're already doing. So hell, yeah, brother, I'm in yeah.
Speaker 1: And on that note, you know, with the with the
Speaker 1: pastor or excuse me, we'll not with the pastor, with
Speaker 1: the with Senator Langford already kind of admitting that clergy
Speaker 1: members do get away with this sort of thing, and
Speaker 1: maybe the bill is not necessary. I have this idea
Speaker 1: that maybe he's blowing a dog whistle to everybody to say, hey,
Speaker 1: start campaigning. Start You're not gonna get in trouble, like
Speaker 1: you're fine, right, And so with that, I want to
Speaker 1: turn to Tracy and ask, you know, are the pastors
Speaker 1: or clergy members in this country afforded different free speech rights.
Speaker 4: Than average Americans?
Speaker 2: Of course, in the same way that service members are
Speaker 2: afforded different free speech rights. When you sign up to
Speaker 2: a certain agreement with the government, they afford you certain
Speaker 2: things and take away certain things as payment. When you
Speaker 2: sign up as a five ZHO one C three organization,
Speaker 2: you gain some benefits and in return you give up
Speaker 2: some things. It's that way with everything. It's just because
Speaker 2: it's with the government. You the only thing they really
Speaker 2: give out is certain rights to certain things. And the
Speaker 2: only thing they can really take or you know, tax benefits.
Speaker 2: I suppose the only thing the only thing they can
Speaker 2: really take from you is either money, which they're giving
Speaker 2: you tax benefits. So why would they take money? So
Speaker 2: they take away you can't talk about these certain things.
Speaker 2: And I think that's kind.
Speaker 4: Of the way it should be.
Speaker 2: Keep if you agree to a certain set of rules,
Speaker 2: you should follow that set of rules. I don't know
Speaker 2: why that that's a that's such a big problem. Go ahead, Rob, yeah,
Speaker 2: real quick.
Speaker 1: What I wanted to follow up with is with the
Speaker 1: admission that they are not held to the same standards.
Speaker 1: Are they actually afforded different free speech rights in a
Speaker 1: different way in that they're not restricted, but they're actually
Speaker 1: given more So go ahead, Rob, please.
Speaker 5: Well, like that's why I was saying that EJ has
Speaker 5: just compelled me so much because EJ literally said.
Speaker 4: Five O one C.
Speaker 5: Three the he was quoting the Senator in fringes and
Speaker 5: the free speech of pastors as if as if that's
Speaker 5: a bad thing, Like that's the thing is that it's
Speaker 5: like they're infringing on the free speech of pastors.
Speaker 4: Yes, it's doing.
Speaker 5: Literally the thing it is meant to do. You're right,
Speaker 5: Like it's one of the rare cases where we can
Speaker 5: tell them, you are correct. It is infringing. That's what
Speaker 5: it's supposed to do. So it's just kind of funny
Speaker 5: to me that they're pointing to the thing working properly
Speaker 5: and being like, do you see what they're doing to us?
Speaker 3: It's it's it's a bit like if they signed up
Speaker 3: to serve and then they had then they complained that
Speaker 3: they had to wear a scratch a uniform all day.
Speaker 3: Yeah that was in the contract.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I I am still currently serving, and uh
Speaker 1: I never had it in my contract that my uniform
Speaker 1: would be uncomfortable, to be honest with you.
Speaker 4: But you know, they do. They make, they make, they make,
Speaker 4: you know, great gains and I love my job.
Speaker 2: But there are certain things you are not permitted to
Speaker 2: say as exactly right.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right, and I wouldn't violate that. And and
Speaker 1: you know, I take my agreement seriously. I don't understand.
Speaker 1: And that's why you know, I asked, do clergy members
Speaker 1: have the same free speech rights because they.
Speaker 4: Seem to get away with it?
Speaker 1: And admittedly so, And if the Senator that is writing
Speaker 1: this bill to remove that is actually saying, well, we
Speaker 1: don't really need to do it, you know, don't they
Speaker 1: already have a benefit over other people, like, for example, us,
Speaker 1: Because if I got on here in a segment, or
Speaker 1: any one of you did, and started either really bashing
Speaker 1: and obliterating a political opponent or part or excuse me,
Speaker 1: a political an elected official or political party.
Speaker 4: You know, without supporting it with some kind of data,
Speaker 4: we could be in violation.
Speaker 1: And something tells me that we wouldn't have the same
Speaker 1: the same protections as clergy members do.
Speaker 4: And so on. That go ahead, Tracy, I would like
Speaker 4: to reflect on.
Speaker 2: That well, viewers. I'm gonna speak directly to them for
Speaker 2: a second. Viewers before this segment and a few times
Speaker 2: in our recording session we're having tonight, we have talked
Speaker 2: very explicitly about what we are permitted to and what
Speaker 2: we are not permitted to say. We're talking about it
Speaker 2: in the ACA right now, going to get some new
Speaker 2: discussions about it. We take this very seriously, and it's
Speaker 2: very disheartening to find that we care very much about
Speaker 2: like respecting the rules and following the agreement that we've made.
Speaker 2: When we find out that like these guys don't even
Speaker 2: care and they're trying to change the rules to get
Speaker 2: away with something they can already get away with.
Speaker 5: It's worse than that they openly mocket. You watch the
Speaker 5: video with the pastor.
Speaker 4: Joss disheartening, EJ.
Speaker 2: Over here. It has a lot to say, but he
Speaker 2: has to like figure out how to say it so
Speaker 2: that he can stay within the constraints of what we're
Speaker 2: allowed to say. And I watch very smart man have
Speaker 2: this hard time trying to figure out what he's got
Speaker 2: to say, and they just mock us. They just mack
Speaker 2: those who want to follow the rules.
Speaker 4: You know what I want to ask you, EJ.
Speaker 1: Why is it that Christian institution institutions are not held
Speaker 1: to the same standards as everyone else.
Speaker 3: I think part of it, at least in America goes
Speaker 3: back to the old anti comedy and anti Reagan days,
Speaker 3: because well, at least back then everything was seen. If
Speaker 3: it was anti USSR, it was good. And the USSR
Speaker 3: were atheists. So we need to be very strong Christians.
Speaker 3: So you know what if occasionally a pastor breaks a
Speaker 3: little rule, well, you know what, it helps us in
Speaker 3: the long run, and that like a lot of things
Speaker 3: from that era that maybe slightly outdated, have just stuck
Speaker 3: around so that it's become normal these days to well,
Speaker 3: these this pastor may have endorsed X political party or
Speaker 3: political person. However, ah, the older it's nothing really, despite
Speaker 3: the fact that they agreed to rules that the rest
Speaker 3: of us have to follow. And if they seriously, if
Speaker 3: they don't want to get behind the restrictions that come
Speaker 3: with the five oh one CE charity title, they should
Speaker 3: not get the benefits of the weather sure, sure.
Speaker 4: And I think that I agree with you there.
Speaker 1: If they are going to violate those rules, then their
Speaker 1: tax benefits should be taken away. Do you imagine with
Speaker 1: all of the discussion in government and politics right now
Speaker 1: in this country about wasting money, about not collecting adequate taxes,
Speaker 1: how much property taxes if paid to the United States,
Speaker 1: whether it's the federal government or the state and local government.
Speaker 1: How much money I don't even know. If I could
Speaker 1: put a figure on it, it'd be in the trillions.
Speaker 1: It would have to be every year if they paid
Speaker 1: their fair share of property taxes and so yeah, the
Speaker 1: fact that they can openly teut violations of this law,
Speaker 1: it's really disconcerting to me.
Speaker 4: And I really don't have much to say on that.
Speaker 4: I think that when it comes to well, you know.
Speaker 1: What, I want to turn this over to you, guys, Rob,
Speaker 1: why do you think why do you think that.
Speaker 4: This is allowed?
Speaker 5: It's well, that's the thing. It's not allowed by rules,
Speaker 5: but it is allowed because they just keep doing it
Speaker 5: and they can openly like I'm just gonna keep harping
Speaker 5: on specifically the one video of just where he specifically
Speaker 5: says they're not going to get us, like they just
Speaker 5: they just know. One thing about this discussion that I
Speaker 5: thought was really interesting is that normally when this sort
Speaker 5: of thing occurs, the talk tends to go in the
Speaker 5: direction of this is political theater. They're doing it for
Speaker 5: their constituents, but it doesn't actually mean anything like that's
Speaker 5: just and both sides do it genuinely, because it's all
Speaker 5: just rage bait. But what I find very interesting about
Speaker 5: this specific one is that this talk hasn't been much
Speaker 5: about the political theater ness of it, because he's already
Speaker 5: admitted that it is. He already admitted that it didn't
Speaker 5: mean anything, but like, we're genuinely considering the effects of
Speaker 5: what if it was repealed. So it's almost like this guy,
Speaker 5: in an attempt to have political theater, hit on something
Speaker 5: that would actually be a substantial change.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he threw a punch, no realizing it would let
Speaker 3: everyone else punch back. It's it's not something that is
Speaker 3: incredibly common, but when it does happen, it does. At
Speaker 3: least it gave me that little moment of a oh,
Speaker 3: this has a little unintended side effect that might actually
Speaker 3: help everyone else in the lone run. Maybe we shouldn't
Speaker 3: been this time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think as as people who speak out
Speaker 1: against the abuses of religion and the importance of keeping
Speaker 1: religious institutions and governments separate, we can realize, or we
Speaker 1: can speak to the fact that things do backfire and
Speaker 1: things precedents are dangerous. Right, this is a little bit
Speaker 1: of a different case, but we know that if one
Speaker 1: group gets away with abuse, probably the rest of us,
Speaker 1: even if we're not being or gets away with If
Speaker 1: one group is abused and the abuser is not held
Speaker 1: to a standard or held accountable, that those other groups
Speaker 1: are probably going to get abused someday because nothing was
Speaker 1: done about it.
Speaker 4: Right, This is a little bit different.
Speaker 1: This could also backfire, and that's what makes it kind
Speaker 1: of similar.
Speaker 4: In the way that we go about doing our business.
Speaker 1: You know, we have to kind of call out the hypocrisy,
Speaker 1: and we have to make sure that people are held.
Speaker 4: To standards so that standards that are not enforced don't lead.
Speaker 1: To further abuses. And I think that these standards do
Speaker 1: need to be enforced. But if this particular one they
Speaker 1: don't want to do doesn't get enforced, like we've talked about,
Speaker 1: I'm probably okay with that because that means that I
Speaker 1: get to do more things that I'm not supposed to do,
Speaker 1: which would be really beneficial and helpful to the cause
Speaker 1: that I'm that I'm so invested in.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, Rob, Well, the bigger issue, You're right, right,
Speaker 5: like in an equal playing field, that's absolutely correct. It's
Speaker 5: just that by virtue of being non religious we have
Speaker 5: less populations, so mob rules in this case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and with that, I want to just in case,
Speaker 1: just in case anybody's not following.
Speaker 4: What we're talking about, by the way, you know. So
Speaker 4: the exemption in.
Speaker 1: This bill that would allow clergy members to openly support
Speaker 1: political members' states that as long as their speech, their rhetoric,
Speaker 1: their support is made in the ordinary course of the
Speaker 1: organization's regular and customary activities in carrying out its exempt
Speaker 1: purpose and be results in the organization incurring not more
Speaker 1: than deminimous incremental expenses.
Speaker 4: And what that means.
Speaker 1: According to dot gov, a deminimus benefit is one for which,
Speaker 1: considering its value and frequency with which it is provided,
Speaker 1: is so small as to make accounting for it are reasonable.
Speaker 1: This basically says, hey, clergy members, go out support whoever
Speaker 1: you want politically, even if you get more money because
Speaker 1: of it, We're not really concerned about that because it's
Speaker 1: going to be so small. Who gets to decide what's
Speaker 1: so small? And you know with that, Yeah, this group,
Speaker 1: these religious groups, while while most of us are not religious,
Speaker 1: and they are to the mob rule point that Rob made,
Speaker 1: they are incredibly organized.
Speaker 4: And that is uh, that is a major.
Speaker 1: Major concern, and so Tracy, I want to I want
Speaker 1: to talk to you about that. You know, what, in
Speaker 1: what way do the rest of us combat such an
Speaker 1: organized structure that is powerful, that has a lot of money,
Speaker 1: and that is intertwined with far right groups in our government?
Speaker 4: What can be done?
Speaker 2: As near as I can tell, the only thing that
Speaker 2: we can do is, UH, is to just be loud.
Speaker 2: That that's that's the best thing I can I can
Speaker 2: figure out is just be loud, don't sit down and
Speaker 2: be quiet. Bad people get stronger when good people stay quiet,
Speaker 2: and and and and that's that's the best I can
Speaker 2: I can come up with. Be loud, don't don't sit
Speaker 2: down and let things happen.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: And just as a side note, I did a little
Speaker 2: bit of calculation while you guys were talking about property
Speaker 2: tax for one specific building in my city, the Cathedral
Speaker 2: Basilica of Saint Louis.
Speaker 4: If if the.
Speaker 2: Catholic Church were required to pay property tax on that
Speaker 2: building alone, it would be over one million dollars yearly.
Speaker 4: So go Ahead wants to capitalize on that.
Speaker 1: And I just want to say, I want to inject
Speaker 1: this before you transition.
Speaker 4: How many pairs of shoes?
Speaker 1: How many college educations, how many backpacks, how many sets
Speaker 1: of school supplies, how much clothing? Like, how in what
Speaker 1: way can that million dollars a year benefit society? But
Speaker 1: instead it does not, and AJ please take it away.
Speaker 3: So what you were saying is bang on what I
Speaker 3: was going to say. I was also thinking about specifically
Speaker 3: pastors like Kenneth Copeland who have a private jet, and
Speaker 3: other megapastors like that, because they oftentimes don't have churches,
Speaker 3: they have stadiums.
Speaker 4: And if you.
Speaker 3: Are like me and you're a bit of a nerd
Speaker 3: and you get curious about figures, you should probably look
Speaker 3: up how much property tax stadium is worth, because they
Speaker 3: are worth more than you would think. They are incredibly
Speaker 3: big billings that hold people in the thousands comfortably. And
Speaker 3: I feel if instead of going down the route of
Speaker 3: diminishing the John snack, they were instead to enforce it fully.
Speaker 3: I feel a lot of megapastors would be selling their stadiums,
Speaker 3: hopping on their private jet going to the nearest country
Speaker 3: that doesn't have any contact with the US, because they
Speaker 3: would be owing the US government a lot of money
Speaker 3: that I don't think a lot of them have.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, we've covered a lot in this segment.
Speaker 1: There's so many things that I wanted to kind of
Speaker 1: harp back on. I think the property taxes and the
Speaker 1: economic impact of churches is something that everybody really needs
Speaker 1: to consider.
Speaker 4: I mean, think about it. If you're watching this show
Speaker 4: right now.
Speaker 1: It's very likely that you pay more in property taxes
Speaker 1: than the Catholic Church does. A multi billion dollar, one
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollar organization. I don't know how much they're
Speaker 1: endowed with or you know, what they've got. I'm sure
Speaker 1: it's in the billions, probably hundreds of billions. But in
Speaker 1: any case, you know, this is an organization, like we've
Speaker 1: talked about in previous segments, that has the money to
Speaker 1: do what they want. These clergy members on TV, they
Speaker 1: have the money to do what they want. They pay
Speaker 1: no taxes, and I just don't understand how that sits
Speaker 1: well with America. And then harping back on, you know,
Speaker 1: where does this come from? EJ talked about, you know,
Speaker 1: earlier in our country's history. You know, we just kind
Speaker 1: of got comfortable with these policies. You know, I think
Speaker 1: that it's a much older, much older doctrine in which
Speaker 1: the church was just in charge of everything.
Speaker 4: And we kind of just let it happen.
Speaker 1: And it's five thousand years in the making, I mean,
Speaker 1: or older than that, where religious people or people in
Speaker 1: power said well, I get my power from God and
Speaker 1: nobody could question it because they either you know, didn't
Speaker 1: have the education to, didn't have the means to or
Speaker 1: the power to, and they just kind of accepted it.
Speaker 1: I think our memory as human beings generationally is not
Speaker 1: one that's very long, and we tend to just kind
Speaker 1: of adopt the perspectives of our ancestors, of our forefathers,
Speaker 1: if you will, and if they kind of held the
Speaker 1: church on a pedestal many many times, they raised their
Speaker 1: children to do it, and it's it's fine. Here we
Speaker 1: are in a a situation where now the church is
Speaker 1: openly gloating and Republican or excuse me, I shouldn't say Republicans,
Speaker 1: even though Senator Langford is a Republican, but lawmakers are
Speaker 1: gloating as well that this isn't useful, or that a
Speaker 1: measure like this isn't even really necessary.
Speaker 4: We've recently just heard from Tracy and EJ.
Speaker 1: Rob. I want to give you a chance to respond
Speaker 1: before we close out. So what's on your mind.
Speaker 5: I was convinced immediately by EJ. And I have changed
Speaker 5: my mind again. They should enforce the rule because mob
Speaker 5: rules you were talking about, it's hard to fathom the
Speaker 5: immense amount of money that they have, so like wouldn't
Speaker 5: be great if you know, there's a bunch of little
Speaker 5: underdogs I can say everything that they want to say.
Speaker 5: That just wouldn't be the case. So if the rule
Speaker 5: we're actually enforced properly, then it would level the playing
Speaker 5: field because then just people couldn't say things that they're
Speaker 5: not supposed to say. But if repealed and then people
Speaker 5: could say anything they want. The people with more money
Speaker 5: will say more. With their private jets and abilities to
Speaker 5: go places. Soney money wins. I should have more of it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, on that note, we should have more of it.
Speaker 1: Tracy, Tracy, you're you're dropping some fire in the private
Speaker 1: chat that we have here.
Speaker 4: Can you just go over some of these stats that
Speaker 4: you're finding? This is crazy?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I looked up the value of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, which
Speaker 2: includes Eagle Mountain International Church. They're estimated to have a
Speaker 2: property value of almost sixty million dollars just in Tarrant County,
Speaker 2: and so I looked up the zip code of where
Speaker 2: they were, and I plugged that into an online calculator,
Speaker 2: and that only limited me up to ten million dollars.
Speaker 4: So I just multiplied it by six.
Speaker 2: Uh, and that came out with hang on, let me
Speaker 2: pull up my calculator again. The Kenneth Copeland Ministries just
Speaker 2: out of Tarrant County would have to pay seven hundred
Speaker 2: and thirty eight six hundred dollars yearly approximately. That's not
Speaker 2: accounting for, you know, whatever write offs or what have you,
Speaker 2: but that would just be their their base property tax.
Speaker 4: That's crazy. That's crazy.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is why our logo on the
Speaker 1: nonprofits is a preacher in kind of that circle and
Speaker 1: slash sign, you know, keep out. And I want to
Speaker 1: remind people actually on that note that the nonprofits has merch.
Speaker 1: We've got all kinds of great gear, shirts, T shirts, sweatshirts,
Speaker 1: the Bigotry duck. If it looks like bigotry and quacks
Speaker 1: like bigotry, it's probably bigotry.
Speaker 4: And that's the Bigotry Duck for you.
Speaker 1: But yeah, go ahead, folks, if you want to support us,
Speaker 1: go ahead, grab a T shirt like I've got, uh,
Speaker 1: Grab a tank top because the summer's coming up, and
Speaker 1: if you like coffee, grab yourself a mug.
Speaker 4: But anyway, I want to thank you again for tuning in.
Speaker 1: Don't forget to tune in tomorrow night with our last
Speaker 1: segment of the week, and go ahead and get yourself
Speaker 1: some merch.
Speaker 4: Thanks.