Republican bullshit or make then look bad.

more than me. Here''s a link http://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526796008/trump-set-to-relax-rules-on-political-activity-by-religious-groups

I thought I heard it passed. My 'friday' so won't be following - but sure hope you guys are.

Supreme Court ruling
"Today's decision discounts centuries of history and jeopardizes the government's ability to remain secular," Sotomayor wrote in her 27-page dissent, almost twice the length of Roberts' opinion. She warned that the ruling "leads us ... to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment."

edit for one of many sources (get with your programme neighbours!!!) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-declares-churches-eligible-public-funds/102438402/

Why isn't that ruling more of an issue in this current debate on free speech and who's allowed to speak up about it? Amnesia seems to be running amok.

If churches are allowed to be political - churches for Christ's sake! - why aren't sportsmen?

They have every right to speak up. Just like everyone else has the right to peacefully react.

haven't logged in for awhile. late response. I seriously don't know where your question comes from. I'm missing something, but something tells me my mini-response on this thread is lost here. I simply wanted to point out the hypocrisy of opening the door for legal religious political engagement (see Justice Ruth's response to the SC ruling) while disallowing sports engagement.

And yes, it is a tricky thing to think too long about without examining some basic premises that can be uncomfortable to the religious community.

It is a bit of an apples and oranges argument because one is a non-taxpaying organization, and the other is private. Which opens another can of worms. Should private organizations (NFL) be scrutinized more strictly than stuff you pay for through taxes? (ie. Churches you own in a socialist kind of way) My immediate reaction is NO. But I suppose that makes me a capitalist pig?

To my mind, a public institution (non-tax paying) should be considerate of all the people - all political parties and all religions represented by those 'share holders' that subsidize them through tax breaks and therefore should not take sides. That's in theory. I can't think of any religion that hasn't had political implications. Not one. Ideology permeates everything and can be twisted horribly. Jesus was a socialist. For instance. But it was nice in theory. Just keep the fundraising out of it.

Private enterprise on the other hand hasn't been held to the same standards. Now you have a president who is inciting private owners to be more altruistic than churches. That's just plain bizarre. I haven't quite put this into the proper words yet.