Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

OBTinia 🏳️‍🌈 🌻📚

@obtinia.bsky.social

13K followers 16K following 1.9K posts

Reader movie lover and democracy supporter 📚🎬🌻 she /her/hers

Posts Replies Media Videos

Reposted by OBTinia 🏳️‍🌈 🌻📚

Maudi63

@maudi63.bsky.social

👇 bsky.app/profile/capt...

Captain Mark Kelly @captmarkkelly.bsky.social · 8h

I swore an oath to the Constitution in 1986. I've upheld it through 25 years of service and every day since I retired.

If Trump's trying to intimidate me, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to our country to be silenced by bullies who care more about power than the Constitution.

November 24, 2025 at 8:48 PM

Reposted by OBTinia 🏳️‍🌈 🌻📚

𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐲 𝐉.𝐒. 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐝𝐚 🇨🇦 🇺🇦 ¬1ɩ

@ajsdecepida.bsky.social

Claim 3: Christian Nationalists Are Fringe, And Most Americans and Faith Leaders Want the Johnson Amendment Intact
The article emphasises that this push comes from a ❝small, vocal❞ Christian nationalist faction and claims nearly 80 percent of Americans oppose pastors endorsing candidates in church, citing Lifeway Research and thousands of faith leaders who back the Johnson Amendment.
Older polling from Lifeway in 2016 did indeed find roughly 8 in 10 Americans opposed pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpit. Newer numbers show some movement, but the basic pattern holds:
A 2024 Lifeway survey found about 60% of Americans say it is inappropriate for pastors to endorse candidates from the pulpit, and around half say churches that endorse should lose their tax-exempt status.6
Support for churches endorsing or using resources for campaigning is still a minority position, even as partisan polarisation makes some Americans more open to it.7
Seidel’s directional claim —that there is no broad public clamour for turning churches into explicit campaign organs— is well supported, even if the specific ❝nearly 80 percent❞ figure is from somewhat older polling.
On the ❝fringe❞ question: groups like NRB, Intercessors for America, HSLDA, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the broader Christian right infrastructure represented by Michael Farris have been embedded in conservative politics for decades; they are not fringe in terms of influence. Farris is a long-time architect of conservative Christian legal strategy (homeschooling, anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ cases) and until recently ran ADF, one of the right’s most powerful litigation shops.8
Ideologically, they represent a hardline Christian nationalist project; institutionally they’re very much part of the Republican mainstream now,

especially under Trump’s second administration. Calling them ❝fringe❞ is more a rhetorical way of saying ❝out of step with public opinion❞ than an accurate description of their power.
Context: Why Churches Are Uniquely Attractive Vehicles for Political Money
Important structural facts the article is leaning on:
Donations to 501(c)(3)s, including churches, are tax-deductible; donations to super PACs are not.9
Most 501(c)(3)s must file Form 990, disclosing finances and (to the IRS, though not always to the public) major donors; churches are exempt from both the application process and the annual public return.5
Church audits are rare and procedurally difficult; the IRS’s own training materials acknowledge the practical barrier.10
Campaign-finance watchdogs and mainstream outlets —not just Rolling Stone— have been warning for years that repealing or neutering the Johnson Amendment would effectively make political contributions tax-deductible and harder to trace, especially if churches start behaving like de facto campaign arms.11
The mechanics of Seidel’s dark-money concern are solid. The risk is not theoretical; it’s baked into the way churches are treated in the tax code.
Rhetoric and Bias
This is a polemic, not a neutral explainer. The language —❝power-hungry Christian nationalists,❞ ❝Trump regime - the most corrupt in recent memory,❞ ❝blow a gaping hole in American democracy❞— is obviously designed to alarm, motivate, and polarise. It downplays how narrow the

actual consent judgment’s text is, and it compresses several steps (❝as-applied carve-out for in-service speech❞ → ❝total collapse of the Johnson Amendment❞ → ❝every church a super PAC❞) into one rhetorical leap.
But when you strip out the adjectives, the skeleton looks like this:
The Johnson Amendment is an old, constitutional condition on tax-exempt status.
Churches occupy a uniquely opaque, tax-favoured position in the nonprofit ecosystem.
The IRS and Christian right plaintiffs are jointly asking a court to formalise an exception for churches’ endorsements to congregations.
Once that exception exists, there’s a clear path —legally and practically— for much broader partisan activity to flow through churches with minimal transparency.
On 1-3, the article is on solid ground. On 4, it’s projecting forward, but it’s not hallucinating a risk out of nowhere; other analysts, including more restrained voices, have raised almost identical concerns.4
Judgment
If you’re asking, ❝Is this Rolling Stone piece fact-based or wild propaganda?❞, the answer is: the underlying legal facts and structural concerns are real and well-supported; the tone is maximalist and the inevitability of the worst-case scenario is overstated.
The text of the NRB consent judgment doesn’t literally erase the Johnson Amendment, but it does carve out a church-only exception that, layered on top of existing opacity and non-enforcement, opens a serious channel for partisan activity inside tax-subsidised, non-transparent institutions. On that core danger, Seidel isn’t crying wolf — he’s describing a wolf that’s already halfway through the door, then extrapolating to the pack that could follow.

Citations:
1 ❝Charities, Churches and Politics︱Internal Revenue Service❞ — https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics
2 ❝National Religious Broadcasters Association Files Johnson Amendment Challenge❞ — https://nrb.org/national-religious-broadcasters-association-files-johnson-amendment-challenge/
3 ❝United States District Court Eastern District of Texas Tyler Division — National Religious Broadcasters, et al. Plaintiffs v. Billy Long, In His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, et al. — Civil Action No. 6:24-cv-00311❞ — https://www.mcglinchey.com/national-religious-broadcaster-proposed-order127452561-1/
4 ❝IRS moves to allow political engagement from churches, in a win for evangelical groups❞ — https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/08/irs-churches-tax-exempt-00441992
5 ❝Filing Requirements for churches and religious organizations❞ — https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations/filing-requirements-for-churches-and-religious-organizations
6 ❝Pastors remain opposed, Americans grow more open to political endorsements in church❞ — https://news.lifeway.com/2024/10/08/pastors-remain-opposed-americans-grow-more-open-to-political-endorsements-in-church/
7 ❝Pastors Remain Opposed, Americans Grow More Open to Political Endorsements in Church❞ — https://research.lifeway.com/2024/10/08/pastors-remain-opposed-americans-grow-more-open-to-political-endorsements-in-church/
8 ❝Michael Farris (lawyer)❞ — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris_%28lawyer%29
9 ❝501(c)(3) organization❞ — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29%283%29_organization
10 ❝Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations❞ — https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
11 ❝Johnson Amendment❞ — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment

November 25, 2025 at 2:45 AM

Reposted by OBTinia 🏳️‍🌈 🌻📚

joes-spot.bsky.social

@joes-spot.bsky.social

November 24, 2025 at 10:31 PM

Reposted by OBTinia 🏳️‍🌈 🌻📚

Vamos Heavenly Creature🇺🇦

@bluedotspecialfl.bsky.social

Lying sacks of shit.

That’s the work of the Biden administration. The Democrats. The GOP has done NOTHING but take away, slash, fire, destroy, kidnap, traffic, torture, terrorize, tax, tariffs, murder, bribery, stochastic terror, cover up for pedophiles, not work, leave town, lie some more…FuckOff

November 24, 2025 at 4:53 PM