Beto O'Rourke's Threat Re: "Oppos{ing} Same Sex Marriage"

[The Nehor 23,080]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The status quo is that same-sex marriage is legal.  And yet Mr. O'Rourke is still threatening the tax exemptions of religious groups.  Now why is that?  What are they doing that Mr. O'Rourke construes as "den{ying} the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us?"

Thanks,

-Smac

And the First Amendment is still enforced for religious freedom so why are you worried about it going away? I would say because those rights are tentative and subject to overthrow. They also know that their rights are also tentative and I suspect you would deny them the rights the Supreme Court decision gave them if you had the power to do so. So why are you surprised they want to limit your rights to preemptively prevent you from limiting their rights?

I don’t agree with them that there is a basic human right to same sex marriage (though we lost the battle and I moved on) but you act as if you are mystified as to why anyone would be hostile. Did you not expect attempts at retribution and disarmament? Actions have consequences. I think our church will be out of the crosshairs soon on this outside of people in our heartland. The church took a stand, fought, lost, and moved on. We do not want to hitch our wagons to the churches that will not move on or the extremists they support. Being upset that extremism leads to opposed extremism is like complaining about the four fundamental forces of physics.

[Ahab 1,957]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And the First Amendment is still enforced for religious freedom so why are you worried about it going away? I would say because those rights are tentative and subject to overthrow. They also know that their rights are also tentative and I suspect you would deny them the rights the Supreme Court decision gave them if you had the power to do so. So why are you surprised they want to limit your rights to preemptively prevent you from limiting their rights?

I don’t agree with them that there is a basic human right to same sex marriage (though we lost the battle and I moved on) but you act as if you are mystified as to why anyone would be hostile. Did you not expect attempts at retribution and disarmament? Actions have consequences. I think our church will be out of the crosshairs soon on this outside of people in our heartland. The church took a stand, fought, lost, and moved on. We do not want to hitch our wagons to the churches that will not move on or the extremists they support. Being upset that extremism leads to opposed extremism is like complaining about the four fundamental forces of physics.

Ooooooh I like it when you speak so boldly!  I think you made your point clear enough so that most people will understand you.  And I agree with you too.

[Robert F. Smith 16,168]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But the normalization of what-used-to-be-extreme positions remains unsettling......................

Fortunately, the members of the Supreme Court are seldom moved by such woke nonsense.  And  most Federal judges will slap such idiotic interpretations down in a heartbeat.

[smac97 14,893]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

The status quo is that same-sex marriage is legal.  And yet Mr. O'Rourke is still threatening the tax exemptions of religious groups.  Now why is that?  What are they doing that Mr. O'Rourke construes as "den{ying} the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us?"

And the First Amendment is still enforced for religious freedom so why are you worried about it going away?

"Let the eye of vigilance never be closed." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- Douglas MacArthur 

"Three of greatest failings, want of sense, of courage, or of vigilance." -- Thucydides

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Desmond Tutu

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would say because those rights are tentative and subject to overthrow.

Not sure what you mean here.

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They also know that their rights are also tentative and I suspect you would deny them the rights the Supreme Court decision gave them if you had the power to do so.

No, I would not deny anyone their constitutional rights.

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So why are you surprised they want to limit your rights to preemptively prevent you from limiting their rights?  I don’t agree with them that there is a basic human right to same sex marriage (though we lost the battle and I moved on) but you act as if you are mystified as to why anyone would be hostile.

I'm more unsettled then "surprised" or "mystified." 

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Did you not expect attempts at retribution and disarmament?

No, I do not expect such things.  Not from the president.  Not under the color of law. 

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Actions have consequences.

So the "consequence" of religious groups exercising their constitutional rights is . . . punishment.  By by government.  Viewpoint discrimination  Violation of the First Amendment.

Hence my being "unsettled."

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think our church will be out of the crosshairs soon on this outside of people in our heartland.

I'm concerned about religious liberty generally, not just as it applies to our Church.

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The church took a stand, fought, lost, and moved on. We do not want to hitch our wagons to the churches that will not move on or the extremists they support.

I don't know what this means.

And to be frank, I am concerned that "President O'Rourke" would not make the distinction you are making here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jake Starkey 76]

We all are aware what Beto meant: punish those who do not support LGBTQ+ agendas.

The right of constitutionally protected religious belief allows us to believe what we want and generally say what we want on these issues.

But Dallin Oaks as a religious leader can't tell you to go vote for Mike Lee because he will try to limit the LGBTQ+ rights.

To me, more importantly, is that I want to know where candidates stand on such items.

[Ahab 1,957]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Really?  Who are these "people?"  And do they represent these "religious organizations," such that the latter can/should be legally punished for the actions for the former?

Also, what are these people doing to "try to have some rights taken away from people who want to marry people of the same sex?"  Are the actions of these people illegal?  If not, then why would "President O"Rourke" threaten to revoke tax exemptions of religious groups because of the legal conduct of their members?

Huh?  What IRS code are you referencing here?  What funds?  

You are getting pretty far afield from what Mr. O'Rourke said.  Let's go to the tape:

So what is presently going on?  What are "religious insitutions, like colleges, churches, charities" doing, such that their tax exemptions are at risk of being denied/revoked?

Well, yes.  But Mr. O'Rourke was not asked "Do you think religious institutions, like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they go beyond the limits imposed on tax-exempt organizations?"  He was, instead, asked "Do you think religious institutions, like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?"

Again, given Mr. O'Rourke's infamous and recent declaration of his intention to violate the Second Amendment ("Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47..."), I think it's reasonable to be concerned about him being similarly indifferent (or even hostile) to the First Amendment.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think we have enough information right now to answer all of your questions so we will have to wait and see how this will play out.  I'm simply stating that he may have a point and IRS code may help to back him up.  

There are quite a few posts in this thread that talk enough about the relevant portions of the IRS code.

If by "opposing" same sex marriage he is talking about people who say people of the same sex shalt not or should not marry, I think he is going to lose the battle, but if he's talking about people who try to take that right away from people, he may win on that point.

 

[Jake Starkey 76]

And to be frank, imo, Beto does not stand a chance of being the nominee.

I do find it informative that Beto almost beat that crazy man in Texas, Mr. Cruz.

[smac97 14,893]

Just now, Ahab said:

I don't think we have enough information right now to answer all of your questions so we will have to wait and see how this will play out. 

Okay.

Meanwhile, I am concerned that the Church is in the crosshairs of people like Mr. O'Rourke.

Just now, Ahab said:

If by "opposing" same sex marriage he is talking about people who say people of the same sex shalt not or should not marry,

Huh?  How is "talking" a violation of the IRS code?

Just now, Ahab said:

I think he is going to lose the battle, but if he's talking about people who try to take that right away from people, he may win on that point.

Again, how?  If they use violence or unlawful means, then I would understand your point.  But what about using lawful means to oppose same-sex marriage and variated issues extrapolated therefrom (the Masterpiece Cakeshop case comes to mind)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor 23,080]

6 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

And to be frank, imo, Beto does not stand a chance of being the nominee.

I do find it informative that Beto almost beat that crazy man in Texas, Mr. Cruz.

Ethical Trolley problem:

You are on a trolly heading towards Ted Cruz and will certainly kill him if you do nothing. You can throw a switch to go down another track and save Cruz but  hit and kill Beto O’Rourke.

Do you:

A. Continue down the track and kill Cruz

B. Throw the switch and kill O’Rourke

C. Run over one of them and then swing back around and take out the other in a second pass

Edited October 17 by The Nehor

[Ahab 1,957]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh?  How is "talking" a violation of the IRS code?

I don't think it is.   You cut my comment a little too short.

Quote

Again, how?  If they use violence or unlawful means, then I would understand your point.  But what about using lawful means to oppose same-sex marriage and variated issues extrapolated therefrom (the Masterpiece Cakeshop case comes to mind)?

I don't think he was talking about using lawful means.  I think he was most likely talking about religious organizations that benefit from IRS codes while saying they should not benefit from them if they seek to take away rights people now have.

I dug what follow next from page 1 again so you could see the IRS code I am talking about:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations

Edited October 17 by Ahab

[The Nehor 23,080]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Let the eye of vigilance never be closed." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- Douglas MacArthur 

"Three of greatest failings, want of sense, of courage, or of vigilance." -- Thucydides

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Desmond Tutu

Not sure what you mean here.

No, I would not deny anyone their constitutional rights.

I'm more unsettled then "surprised" or "mystified." 

No, I do not expect such things.  Not from the president.  Not under the color of law. 

So the "consequence" of religious groups exercising their constitutional rights is . . . punishment.  By by government.  Viewpoint discrimination  Violation of the First Amendment.

Hence my being "unsettled."

I'm concerned about religious liberty generally, not just as it applies to our Church.

I don't know what this means.

And to be frank, I am concerned that "President O'Rourke" would not make the distinction you are making here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Wait, hold on. Stop right there. I want to respond to all of this but do not have time but......you do not expect the President to retaliate against or persecute their enemies on moral grounds and yet you support.....wait.....does not compute.......

 

[smac97 14,893]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't think it is.   You cut my comment a little too short.

I don't think he was talking about using lawful means.  I think he was most likely talking about religious organizations that benefit from IRS codes while saying they should not benefit from them if they seek to take away rights people now have.

I dug what follow next from page 1 again so you could see the IRS code I am talking about:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations

Fair enough.

My concern is that "President O'Rourke" would be more expansive in his interpretation of religious groups "oppos{ing} same-sex marriage."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab 1,957]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ethical Trolley problem:

You are on a trolly heading towards Ted Cruz and will certainly kill him if you do nothing. You can throw a switch to go down another track and save Cruz but  hit and kill Beto O’Rourke.

Do you:

A. Continue down the track and kill Cruz

B. Throw the switch and kill O’Rourke

C. Run over one of them and then swing back around and take out the other in a second pass

Why are bombs never included in this kind of test. It would make it a lot easier just to use bombs.

[The Nehor 23,080]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Why are bombs never included in this kind of test. It would make it a lot easier just to use bombs.

Trolleys are more fun:

 

[Ahab 1,957]

Strange what passes as humor these days.  Almost as strange as what passes as a married couple these days.  It doesn't even take a man or a woman anymore. And I think that is funny.

[Jake Starkey 76]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Ethical Trolley problem:

You are on a trolly heading towards Ted Cruz and will certainly kill him if you do nothing. You can throw a switch to go down another track and save Cruz but  hit and kill Beto O’Rourke.

Do you:

A. Continue down the track and kill Cruz

B. Throw the switch and kill O’Rourke

C. Run over one of them and then swing back around and take out the other in a second pass

Stop the trolley.  Why would you want to hit either of them?

Edited October 17 by Jake Starkey

[california boy 5,517]

13 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Cal, I must admit that I did not read the report, but I don't think that negates my comment....it may negate the report's findings. The phenomena found in the Western world is not easily answerable and I don't think there is one answer. That is all I was saying and if it disagrees with the report, I could list a number of other reports that provide different reasons for the loss of members on multiple continents.

Looks like I did not read the report close enough.  While the data does support the drop in religion and does correspond to when religion (Moral Majority organized) got heavily involved in politics, the conclusion I quoted that I though was from Gallup was actually an editorial interpreting the data. 

I also have said that religions involvement is only one of several reasons why people are leaving organized religion in the millions after being fairly stable since 1936.  If you are interested, the date is certainly worth looking at.  

After listening to the comments on this thread, it appears that the majority want to keep the course that organized religion is currently following and more than willing to deal with the collateral damage.  I thought that my pointing out the reality and consequences with being heavily involved in politics by organized religion would be helpful.  Evidently my comments are unwelcome here.  I am more than happy to move on.

Edited October 18 by california boy

[The Nehor 23,080]

17 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Stop the trolley.  Why would you want to hit either of them?

How should I know? I am not a psychiatrist!

Best guess:

[Ahab 1,957]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

Stop the trolley.  Why would you want to hit either of them?

Good luck in getting that option D added to the list of options.

[Storm Rider 6,078]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Looks like I did not read the report close enough.  While the data does support the drop in religion and does correspond to when religion (Moral Majority organized) got heavily involved in politics, the conclusion I quoted that I though was from Gallup was actually an editorial interpreting the data. 

I also have said that religions involvement is only one of several reasons why people are leaving organized religion in the millions after being fairly stable since 1936.  If you are interested, the date is certainly worth looking at.  

After listening to the comments on this thread, it appears that the majority want to keep the course that religion is currently following and more than willing to deal with the collateral damage.  I thought that my pointing out the reality and consequences with being heavily involved in politics by organized religion would be helpful.  Evidently my comments are unwelcome here.  I am more than happy to move on.

Cal, I haven't read everyone's comments, BUT I don't think religions/churches should participate in politics except within pretty defined areas that affect their beliefs, doctrines, and practices. After those areas, I don't support any churches involving themselves in the area of politics. 

Of course, I also think it would be better if mass media was completely barred from having ads and editorializing on politics. To me, they have proven themselves incapable of being neutral. I wish - big WISH - that we could have candidates talk directly to the people in small town settings. I realize it is not realistic, but it is a wish. I have long grown uncomfortable with political parties; just give us individuals that tell us what they believe in and let them serve, being totally focused on serving the people, rather than their party affiliation.  

[Ahab 1,957]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, I haven't read everyone's comments, BUT I don't think religions/churches should participate in politics except within pretty defined areas that affect their beliefs, doctrines, and practices. After those areas, I don't support any churches involving themselves in the area of politics. 

Of course, I also think it would be better if mass media was completely barred from having ads and editorializing on politics. To me, they have proven themselves incapable of being neutral. I wish - big WISH - that we could have candidates talk directly to the people in small town settings. I realize it is not realistic, but it is a wish. I have long grown uncomfortable with political parties; just give us individuals that tell us what they believe in and let them serve, being totally focused on serving the people, rather than their party affiliation.  

 You are aware that secuiar governments are the world's counterfeit version of the priesthood, aren't you?  If the world were governed as it should be governed it would be governed as the Church general authorities govern the Church.  Leaders would not run for office but would be appointed by priesthood authorities.  Tithes and offerings would replace taxes.  Everyone would still be free to make their own decisions and then if people left the Church to govern themselves we would be back to square 1 with secular governments again.

I'm looking forward to when our Lord comes back to straighten all of this out.  I'm not sure but I think he'll still allow secular governments to remain in place, for a little while longer, but eventually our Lord will rule over this planet and those who can't abide it will go somewhere else.

[The Nehor 23,080]

23 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, I haven't read everyone's comments, BUT I don't think religions/churches should participate in politics except within pretty defined areas that affect their beliefs, doctrines, and practices. After those areas, I don't support any churches involving themselves in the area of politics. 

Of course, I also think it would be better if mass media was completely barred from having ads and editorializing on politics. To me, they have proven themselves incapable of being neutral. I wish - big WISH - that we could have candidates talk directly to the people in small town settings. I realize it is not realistic, but it is a wish. I have long grown uncomfortable with political parties; just give us individuals that tell us what they believe in and let them serve, being totally focused on serving the people, rather than their party affiliation.  

We tried it once when the last Founding Father to serve as President tried to end political parties all together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Good_Feelings#cite_note-ammon1971p366-1

An interesting time led by an interesting man.

[Calm 33,471]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

it appears that the majority want to keep the course that religion is currently following and more than willing to deal with the collateral damage.

"Religion" in general is different than an individual's religion.  There is variation between religions and denominations, sometimes extreme.

If you isolated different religions, I bet many posters would be okay with changes of approach for some of the faiths.  I for one would be happy if .I saw some changes by a certain segment of evangelical conservative politically active groups...don't know if they run in congregations or are scattered throughout.

[Storm Rider 6,078]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

 You are aware that secuiar governments are the world's counterfeit version of the priesthood, aren't you?  If the world were governed as it should be governed it would be governed as the Church general authorities govern the Church.  Leaders would not run for office but would be appointed by priesthood authorities.  Tithes and offerings would replace taxes.  Everyone would still be free to make their own decisions and then if people left the Church to govern themselves we would be back to square 1 with secular governments again.

I'm looking forward to when our Lord comes back to straighten all of this out.  I'm not sure but I think he'll still allow secular governments to remain in place, for a little while longer, but eventually our Lord will rule over this planet and those who can't abide it will go somewhere else.

The Savior did not have much trouble identifying and asking his followers to support their local government while still drawing a definite line between what they did and the gospel he taught. I think I understand your point, but it is a bit too far for me to go.

However, I completely agree that I look forward to the day when our Savior will return and govern. 

[Jake Starkey 76]

When the Savior returns and governs, I doubt free agency and secular government will be eliminated in the new order.