Beto O’Rourke’s Progressive Tolerance Now he wants to use the tax code to punish religious dissenter

Let's be up front, I'm an atheist according to the dictionary and those of religious faith. Personally I don't feel like an atheist because I don't know how an atheist is supposed to feel. I simply do not believe in supernatural beings looking over us or in a religious faith.

But there IS freedom of belief in a faith or no faith and your right to practice it, or not, without government interference or persecution. Government is to be neutral with regards to matters of religious faith. An establishments of religion or not to engage in political matters and use that power of religious faith to engage in political or government matters. The separation of church and state, a very wise proposition in our founding. And a reason we treat establishments of religion tax free, government doesn't tax them and they stay our of government.

Now Beto wants to use the tax code to as the headline says punish religious establishments for political purposes if they do not comply with his morals.

"Asked at a CNN town hall Thursday if religious institutions should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage, Mr. O’Rourke said “yes,” eliciting cheers from the crowd. “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution . . . that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us . . . [W]e are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.” "
https://www.wsj.com/articles/beto-orourkes-progressive-tolerance-11570834313


And of course were he able to to repeal 503 tax law which exempts those certain taxes that would open the door for those churches using their pulpits as political platforms.

Did he really think that through or does he think being antagonistics towards religious establishments will actually gain him votes?

 

Who is Beto O'Rourke?

 

O’Rourke is a huge problem for the Dems. He is saying stuff and getting positive responses for things that the Republicans will use as powerful sound bites in their campaigns. He is saying "hell yes we are going to take your guns!" Even after all these years of the Democrats flatly saying that the whole idea would be absurd. He is giving Trump and the far right ammunition that will last for a decade.

 

Robert Francis.............

 

Finally a thread worthy of reply.
O'Rourke is no longer getting coverage of his campaign and is in danger of dropping to the bottom, so his only hope is to say things that will get him attention.
To answer the first question, I don't think he's thinking much at all.
To answer the second question while advancing the OP: Do you know anyone who hates the churches so much he'll advance a minimally-qualified young man from Texas with no substance to his top choice for President because of this?
Now to the practical matters of tax exemption:
A President can not make such a change by proclamation.
A law would have to work through Congress, getting all kinds of small changes and exceptions.
If such a law were to be introduced, does anyone believe the top consideration for whether an organization could lose its status would be same-sex marriage? There are churches that still promote prohibition. Should they lose their status with a bill going back to 1934? There are lots of legal things certain organizations are against. That too is protected by the first amendment if anything is.
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that in McCulloch versus Maryland." Ask him if he even recognizes the quote. Destroying is the goal of the anti-religionists and a certain segment of others with a pointed agenda. Does he want to destroy churches?
On a more practical basis, should every local church with 6 households be forced to take a position about this or other matters that should never matter to them?
Back about 1983 an assistant pastor at my church mentioned that churches could have their tax-exempt status revoked for preaching about politics-and abortion was on the list of taboo subjects. So the law is probably in place already. A former Congressman should know that.
Even more practical for this situation is how O'Rourke can possibly gain a vote from anyone by saying this. His primary opponents include a man married to a man. How can anyone make the case that he would protect the interests of such persons better than the opponent of their same identity?

 

Beto is the kind of guy the Democrats don't want owning a gun.

 

Well I gladly accept "likes".......

I wouldn't put it past those on the left.

Which is a reality that the Democrat candidates and their supporters can't seem to grasp. Take Warren and Sanders "wealth tax". It would take a constitution amendment to create that direct tax on the citizens. No executive order or even legislation passed by the Congress and Signed by the President can create that. It took the 22nd Amendment to create the income tax.

Will O'Rourke gain any votes, maybe. More than he stands to lose, I wouldn't think so.

 

I think is the kind of guy that deserved as much attention that he got as Obama did his Nobel Peace Prize and it was all hype to begin with.

 

A beta male

 

If I'm being generous to him, maybe he meant that churches being directly involved in political lobbying should lose their tax exempt status. Even with that generosity, it is giant misstep.

From what I understand, churches stand to lose their tax exempt status ONLY when they support a specific CANDIDATE. Standing for an ISSUE is another story. It is an imperfect distinction, but probably the best distinction we have to go with.

I support gay marriage, I support marriage equality in the eyes of the government, and I support free speech to try to convince religious organizations to support gay marriage as well. I do not support taking away anyone's tax exempt status for disagreeing with me.

I want to be nice to O'Rourke because he seems like a decent guy. As much as I disagree with him, I wouldn't mind having a beer with him or imbibing in other chemical influences that would encourage a lively but cordial debate on the subject. But it sounds to me like he's just trying to stay relevant by introducing some controversy to an issue that appears to be largely settled.

 

I wouldn't object to all religions loosing their tax status.

 

I didnt realize he was still running.

 

Beto certainly seems the most willing to promise the world no matter the cost.

Lots of Democrats go to church. Lots of blacks go to church. He should be treading lightly. Democrats are going to win woke inner city hipsters either way. Moderate Christians not so much.

 

And when a conservative President says unless the church is pro-life no tax deductions? ??

 

And then becoming unleashed political forces?

 

I thought the evangelicals already were.

 

Oh just wait when they no longer have to abide by the tax code restrictions. You REALLY want that? I'm all for keep religious faith out of politics and politics our of religious faith. Two powerful influences which need that wall of separation.

 

Republicans are going to win the pro life vote anyway.

It's tempting to aim all policy at the rabid, frothing at the mouth base - but really if you want to win elections you need to court swing voters and moderates in key states.

 

Churches should not be automatically tax exempt
They should have to apply just like all charitable organizations.

 

I think you mean pro-birth; they are far from pro-life as most of them support the death penalty, war, ignore atrocities undertaken by our government, are against healthcare for all, are against social safety nets (unless they benifit), and so on.

 

I long ago decided not to get hung up on labels. I call North Korea the DPRK even though they are not democratic, not of the people, not a republic, and not Korea.

Lol.

 

They do. A special 503 or 501 form.

 

I'm just saying, many on the left want to "go after" religious groups and this is one way to rile up that emotion. But things have consequences which the left does look down the road to see what they maybe. This liberal guy somehow take away deductions for churches that don't agree with him, then a conservative go after churches and other non-profits which don't agree with him.

 

So he hates Christians.. got it...
Great thing is he will never be president.

 

Anyone giving him a positive feed back for what he says about churches is the leftist equivalent of the white supremacist in Charlottesville..