Christian TV show

[Jazzy]

The audience of about 1,500 people waved small American flags and chanted “USA! USA! USA!” as television cameras began filming last Friday inside a Regent University ballroom. Many in the crowd wore red “Make America Great Again” hats. Some carried Bibles.

They had paid $60 each to attend a live taping of “FlashPoint,” a national TV program that’s won loyal viewers with a unique blend of pro-Trump political commentary and prophetic messages about God’s divine plans for America.

Over the next three hours, the audience heard the same overarching message that “FlashPoint” broadcasts three times a week on the Victory Channel television network and various streaming platforms: The world has entered its final years. Jesus will soon return. But Christians are not meant to wait idly while evil runs rampant; they are called to occupy positions of power and influence in society. And in the short term, that means putting Donald Trump back in the White House.

Launched in 2020 and hosted by pastor Gene Bailey, “FlashPoint” at times looks and sounds like other right-wing cable programs. But unlike Fox News hosts, the rotating panel of conservative pastors and commentators on “FlashPoint” pepper their political analysis with messages that they say come directly from God.

Continue reading

---

"Johnson Amendment, a federal law that prohibits nonprofit foundations and religious organizations — including the one that operates the Victory Channel — from endorsing political candidates."

So they should have their non-profit status revoked because they're endorsing a candidate. Am I right?

 

[Albion]

Continue reading

---

"Johnson Amendment, a federal law that prohibits nonprofit foundations and religious organizations — including the one that operates the Victory Channel — from endorsing political candidates."

So they should have their non-profit status revoked because they're endorsing a candidate. Am I right?

They do seem to be treading on dangerous ground by specifically referring to the listeners voting for a particular candidate. In contrast, many liberal preachers avoid the problem by praising some candidate and even having the candidate deliver an unmistakable campaign speech from the pulpit, but without a straightforward call for hearers to vote a certain way.

The people in this case would seem to be in a good position to do the same. For instance, "Christians are not meant to wait idly while evil runs rampant; they are called to occupy positions of power and influence in society" wouldn't seem to violate any law.

 

[tango]

This sounds like typical dominionist garbage, the kind of thing I've come to expect from "Christian TV".

If non-profit status is dependent on not endorsing political candidates they should certainly be sanctioned for breaking that term. I'm not familiar with the specific legislation so can't say whether that means a sanction or outright loss of non-profit status.

 

[tango]

They do seem to be treading on dangerous ground by specifically referring to the listeners voting for a particular candidate. In contrast, many liberal preachers avoid the problem by praising some candidate and even having the candidate deliver an unmistakable campaign speech from the pulpit, but without a straightforward call for hearers to vote a certain way.

The people in this case would seem to be in a good position to do the same. For instance, "Christians are not meant to wait idly while evil runs rampant; they are called to occupy positions of power and influence in society" wouldn't seem to violate any law.

That part of it is at least nominally neutral, although the next part about how "in the short term that means putting Donald Trump back in the White House" is anything but.

 

[Albion]

That part of it is at least nominally neutral, although the next part about how "in the short term that means putting Donald Trump back in the White House" is anything but.

That's correct, hence my observation that the last part there was both unnecessary. and dangerous.

That's because the listeners had already 'gotten the message' from the first part and, also, that it's the latter section which might get the organization into legal trouble.