this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
1512 points (100.0% liked)

196

16244 readers
1986 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
moss@lemmy.blahaj.zone
greembow@lemmy.blahaj.zone
moss@lemmy.world
queue@beehaw.org
funky_rodent@lemmy.blahaj.zone
PeachyMcPeachface@lemmy.blahaj.zone
threegnomes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
greembow@lemmy.world
remotelove@lemmy.ca
Roflmasterbigpimp@feddit.de
qaz@lemmy.world
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemm.ee
qaz@lemmy.blahaj.zone
qaz@lemmy.ca
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
qaz@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Qaz@lemmy.ml
qaz@sh.itjust.works
qaz@lemmy.sdf.org
1512
Trump bible (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 5 months ago by sjmarf@sh.itjust.works to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] ivanafterall@kbin.social 52 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hadn't considered that angle.

[โ€“] HumanPenguin@lemmy.cafe 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Its def a way around church funding. But a legal one. So the use of laundering weakens the complaint.

The only potential legal question. Is are churches buying the bible or openly encouraging memembers to. And let's be honest. That tax dodge is totally ignored by the IRS for so long. I can see it getting challenged as unequal application of law. Unless the IRS dose some major attack on most churches.

Edit; odd autocorrect. Nuking vs buying.