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

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"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.

I agree.  I should have written organized religion.  I will correct my post.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I agree.  I should have written organized religion.  I will correct my post.

How many different types of organized religions are there (Unitarian, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Baptist, Orthodox Jews, etc...)?  I don't see that as much more accurate.

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

How many different types of organized religions are there (Unitarian, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Baptist, Orthodox Jews, etc...)?  I don't see that as much more accurate.

But you probably do know which organized religions have decided to get involved in politics.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

But you probably do know which organized religions have decided to get involved in politics.

But they have done so in different ways.  Some .I have seen come out strongly democrat, for example, while other are republican.  Some have come out for causes that younger adults tend to support while others align more with older generations.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

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

I don't think secular government will disappear immediately upon his return, it might but I doubt it, but eventually only those who can abide and obey celestial law will remain here while everybody else gets sent to a world with laws they can abide and obey, whether that is what we could call a telestial order society or a terrestrial order society or outer darkness where everybody gets to make up their own laws to live by, whatever they choose.  If they can't abide the best they will be sent to an inferior level society.

Until then we're just having to put up laws established by those who govern this world, where telestial order laws predominately govern the world, generally.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

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

 

39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't think secular government will disappear immediately upon his return, it might but I doubt it, but eventually only those who can abide and obey celestial law will remain here while everybody else gets sent to a world with laws they can abide and obey, whether that is what we could call a telestial order society or a terrestrial order society or outer darkness where everybody gets to make up their own laws to live by, whatever they choose.  If they can't abide the best they will be sent to an inferior level society.

Until then we're just having to put up laws established by those who govern this world, where telestial order laws predominately govern the world, generally.

All the prophecies and teachings I read in the scriptures about the Millennium, when Christ reigns personally on the earth, lead me to believe there will be no more secular government. There will be no more need for it, because wickedness and darkness will have been purged from the earth, and Satan will have been bound. Moral agency will still be present, but only the righteous will have survived the purging. 
 

All government will be under the direction of Christ, and a true theocracy will prevail. The Council of Fifty established in Joseph Smith’s day looked forward to that time. 
 

The prophecy of Daniel in his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream will have its perfect fulfillment; that is, the Kingdom of God will have rolled forth like the stone cut out of the mountain without hands and will have broken up and absorbed all earthly kingdoms, regimes and governments. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

All the prophecies and teachings I read in the scriptures about the Millennium, when Christ reigns personally on the earth, lead me to believe there will be no more secular government. There will be no more need for it, because wickedness and darkness will have been purged from the earth, and Satan will have been bound. Moral agency will still be present, but only the righteous will have survived the purging. 
 

All government will be under the direction of Christ, and a true theocracy will prevail. The Council of Fifty established in Joseph Smith’s day looked forward to that time. 
 

The prophecy of Daniel in his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream will have its perfect fulfillment; that is, the Kingdom of God will have rolled forth like the stone cut out of the mountain without hands and will have broken up and absorbed all earthly kingdoms, regimes and governments. 

I've read some things from some prophets which I consider to be scripture, even though they go beyond the information in our standard works, and they have said some things that give me the idea that secular governments may continue.  Statements about how not everyone who remains here will be members of our Lord's Church, meaning they will be members of some other society separate from the Church, and that all will be required is that they be able to abide Terrestrial law, which is the next level above it's current Telestial level.  And conceivably those other societies could govern themselves, as long as our Lord allows it, which I suppose he would as long as they obeyed Terrestrial level law.  The world won't become Celestial level, with only Celestial level people here, until after the millenium, and then everyone who isn't able to obey Celestial level law will be sent to some other world for people who can only abide a kingdom of lesser glory.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Ahab

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I've read some things from some prophets which I consider to be scripture, even though they go beyond the information in our standard works, and they have said some things that give me the idea that secular governments may continue.  Statements about how not everyone who remains here will be members of our Lord's Church, meaning they will be members of some other society separate from the Church, and that all will be required is that they be able to abide Terrestrial law, which is the next level above it's current Telestial level.  And conceivably those other societies could govern themselves, as long as our Lord allows it, which I suppose he would as long as they obeyed Terrestrial level law.  The world won't become Celestial level, with only Celestial level people here, until after the millenium, and then everyone who isn't able to obey Celestial level law will be sent to some other world for people who can only abide a kingdom of lesser glory.

I too have heard/read statements to the effect that not everyone who remains after the purging of the wicked will be members of the Savior’s church. 
 

However, my personal conjecture is that such a state of affairs, if it exists, will prevail only in the beginning of the Millennium. The gospel will be preached in all the world at a scale and pace previously unheard of. With Satan bound, and with only the righteous and honest in heart remaining on the earth, the inhabitants will quickly grasp and embrace the true and pure gospel when it is preached to them, until ultimately, as prophesied, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. 
 

And I still say that in that blessed day, the stone will have rolled forth and consumed all nations and earthly governments and that the earth in its purified state will be ruled by Him Whose right it is to reign. 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/15/2019 at 10:20 AM, Duncan said:

Nobody has said tickety boo about Churches losing tax exemption status about gay marriage in Canada so I wouldn't worry about it.

I honestly do not understand this sentence.

Does it mean that Churches HAVE lost their tax exemption status, and no one has protested that?

And why would you not worry about it?

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I too have heard/read statements to the effect that not everyone who remains after the purging of the wicked will be members of the Savior’s church. 
 

However, my personal conjecture is that such a state of affairs, if it exists, will prevail only in the beginning of the Millennium. The gospel will be preached in all the world at a scale and pace previously unheard of. With Satan bound, and with only the righteous and honest in heart remaining on the earth, the inhabitants will quickly grasp and embrace the true and pure gospel when it is preached to them, until ultimately, as prophesied, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. 
 

And I still say that in that blessed day, the stone will have rolled forth and consumed all nations and earthly governments and that the earth in its purified state will be ruled by Him Whose right it is to reign. 

To me what you are alluding to means that everyone will be a Christian, at least in some sense.  Not that everyone who is a Christian will accept all that we have to say about what it means to be a Christian.  So there will be terrestrial level Christians as well as Celestial level Christians, speaking of the level of intelligence people will have and be able to accept.  So some of those other Christians will have their own societies apart from the Church.  Baptists  and Methodists and Catholics and members of other groups who believe they are part of the true Church of Jesus Christ, but really are not, even though they are Christians, at least in some sense.

I think of my Dad who recently passed away, a minster of a Christian society/church called the Church of Christ.  And his Dad, my grand Dad, who was also a minister of that church.  They thought they were Christians and at least in some sense I believe they were too, and yet they never even wanted to talk with me about my beliefs which I gained after I became a member of the true church of Jesus Christ on this planet.  At least not to try to understand them and why I believed them.  They just had a general belief that I was wrong and that I should come back to their church.  So will they ever become a member of the true church of Jesus Christ?  Or even listen to missionaries who want to teach them about it?  I suppose that remains to be seen, some more.  But I do believe they were Christians and lived fairly good moral lives, with some slip ups that they repented from when they saw they were wrong, and I believe they will receive many blessings for the way they lived their lives or at least tried to be Christians.

Maybe we're just not agreeing on what it means to for a government to be a secular government, so maybe I should clarify by saying I believe there will be societies governing themselves who are not part of the true church of Jesus Christ.  Whether they're all keeping to themselves in their own individual societies or mingling with other societies that are not part of the Church.  Like we have in our secular government now, with many who are Christians at least in some sense, and even some members of the true church of Jesus Christ among them.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I honestly do not understand this sentence.

Does it mean that Churches HAVE lost their tax exemption status, and no one has protested that?

And why would you not worry about it?

No one in Canada has taken away the tax exempt status of the Church, despite the Church's aversion to gay marriage. So, based on this experience I would not worry about the Church in the US losing their tax exempt status. We've had gay marriage for years and years and the Church is still intact. Might I add when gay marriage came here the CHQ said nothing but when it came to the US, they lost their minds and the world came to an end apparently

[mfbukowski]

On 10/15/2019 at 10:25 AM, Ahab said:

"Yes," O'Rourke replied, adding that "there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us."

 

This all is just plain self-contradictory.  What about the rights of the unborn?   And regarding firearms, he has not begun to imagine the possible consequences that actual confiscation could bring.  "Molon labe".  The very reason we have the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyrants from removing our rights to bear arms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe

Since many law-enforcement officers and military folks own guns themselves, it will be "interesting" to see how they personally react to an order give up their personal weapons and perhaps end up shooting others for owning the same weapons they themselves own.

Interesting indeed.

Edited October 18, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

To me what you are alluding to means that everyone will be a Christian, at least in some sense.  Not that everyone who is a Christian will accept all that we have to say about what it means to be a Christian.  So there will be terrestrial level Christians as well as Celestial level Christians, speaking of the level of intelligence people will have and be able to accept.  So some of those other Christians will have their own societies apart from the Church.  Baptists  and Methodists and Catholics and members of other groups who believe they are part of the true Church of Jesus Christ, but really are not, even though they are Christians, at least in some sense.

I think of my Dad who recently passed away, a minster of a Christian society/church called the Church of Christ.  And his Dad, my grand Dad, who was also a minister of that church.  They thought they were Christians and at least in some sense I believe they were too, and yet they never even wanted to talk with me about my beliefs which I gained after I became a member of the true church of Jesus Christ on this planet.  At least not to try to understand them and why I believed them.  They just had a general belief that I was wrong and that I should come back to their church.  So will they ever become a member of the true church of Jesus Christ?  Or even listen to missionaries who want to teach them about it?  I suppose that remains to be seen, some more.  But I do believe they were Christians and lived fairly good moral lives, with some slip ups that they repented from when they saw they were wrong, and I believe they will receive many blessings for the way they lived their lives or at least tried to be Christians.

Maybe we're just not agreeing on what it means to for a government to be a secular government, so maybe I should clarify by saying I believe there will be societies governing themselves who are not part of the true church of Jesus Christ.  Whether they're all keeping to themselves in their own individual societies or mingling with other societies that are not part of the Church.  Like we have in our secular government now, with many who are Christians at least in some sense, and even some members of the true church of Jesus Christ among them.

No, I’m saying that everyone who survives the burning that precedes Christ’s Second Coming will eventually — and probably very soon — embrace the gospel of Christ in its purity and fulness when it is taught to them. 
 

Again, my personal conjecture, but I believe it to be reasonable. 

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I’m saying that everyone who survives the burning that precedes Christ’s Second Coming will eventually — and probably very soon — embrace the gospel of Christ in its purity and fulness when it is taught to them. 
 

Again, my personal conjecture, but I believe it to be reasonable. 

Reasonable to those of us who believe what we believe is reasonable to believe.  If that were true that would mean pretty much everybody would qualify for the celestial glory level of intelligence and nobody would fit the Terrestrial glory description of people who were honorable but deceived by the craftiness of men.  The craftiness of men, our Lord said.  Satan isn't the only person who says and believes things that has the effect of misleading other people.  See D&C 76 and visualize the various levels of intelligence our Lord was talking about.

Nice to hope for and I hope my Dad and Granddad do someday want to hear more of what we believe while being willing to pray to know if all that we know is true.  

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/18/2019 at 12:39 PM, Ahab said:

Reasonable to those of us who believe what we believe is reasonable to believe.  If that were true that would mean pretty much everybody would qualify for the celestial glory level of intelligence and nobody would fit the Terrestrial glory description of people who were honorable but deceived by the craftiness of men.  The craftiness of men, our Lord said.  Satan isn't the only person who says and believes things that has the effect of misleading other people.  See D&C 76 and visualize the various levels of intelligence our Lord was talking about.

Nice to hope for and I hope my Dad and Granddad do someday want to hear more of what we believe while being willing to pray to know if all that we know is true.  

I don’t think there will be crafty deceivers at large during the Millennium. That doesn’t strike me as the sort who would survive the purging. 
 

We are told that Satan will be “loosed for a little season” after the thousand years of peace. I believe this is necessary so that those who live during the Millennium can have opportunity to be tested as were those who lived previously. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

On 10/15/2019 at 12:58 PM, smac97 said:

I'm trying to figure out what conclusions to draw from this:

This is, to put it mildly, unsettling.

It looks like Mr. O'Rourke's campaign team has tried to do some damage control:

I'm not sure if I can go along with this.  It sounds like some pretty serious spin.  Not even CNN (!) seems to be buying it:

And not only that, it has left me wondering what the future holds for people who have a belief or viewpoint that people like Beto O'Rourke dislike.  This is particularly so given the following statement issued in 2008: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."  The person who made that statement was . . . Barack Obama.

Fortunately, the law does appear to be against Mr. O'Rourke's threat (from the first link):

Nevertheless, I can't help but think that there are plenty of ways that a "President O'Rourke" could find to use the government to punish religious organizations, such as the Church, for its teachings about same-sex marriage.  (It is noteworthy that the Church acknowledges the legality of same-sex marriage as "the law of the land.")

Also, it appears that Mr. O'Rourke is not the only one who is thinking of ways to use the government to punish religionists for their beliefs (from the first link):

It also looks like this idea has been percolating for some years now.  Consider this observation (from an article in The Atlantic) : 

Wow.

And again, this is all fairly unsettling. 

Beto O'Rourke.  Cory Booker.  Donald Verrilli.  Mark Tushnet.  And how many more people in positions of power, or who are seeking positions of power, or who are advising those in power or those seeking positions of power, share these views?  

How many want, like Beto O'Rourke, to strip tax exemptions from churches and religious groups based solely on their religious beliefs ("should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage")?

How many are, like Cory Booker, gearing up for a "long legal battle" against churches and religious groups who disagree with same-sex marriage on moral grounds?

How many, like Tushnet, look at "religious conservatives" as "losers" against whom no "nice{ness}" is warranted, and should instead be treated using a "hard line"?

The above-linked Atlantic article goes on to point out some of the ramifications to society that will likely arise should Mr. O'Rourke have his way:

Either Mr. O'Rourke doesn't care about this likely fallout, or he is so shortsighted that he hasn't considered it.  Either way, his published threat is, again, unsettling.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

With this and the gun issue, and likely even without these, Beto has no chance in getting the nomination let alone elected as president. And as a Republic I think the majority of Americans would oppose such action.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think there will be crafty deceivers at large during the Millennium. That doesn’t strike me as the sort who would survive the purging. 

I understand how people can be sincere in their beliefs and still be wrong.  And still trying to share their false beliefs with other people.  Like people who teach how they understand Mormonism to be of the devil and that anyone who accepts it has been deceived.  People like my Dad and grand Dad who taught things like that.  Deceived, themselves, sharing what they sincerely believed with other people.  People practicing priestcraft without realizing there was anything wrong with that.  People who think it's okay to share whatever they think God believes and wants others to believe even when they have been deceived and are spreading false teachings to anyone who will listen to them while making it generally more difficult to find the truth, thinking they have the truth but really do not. 

Deceiving and misleading people isn't necessarily intentional.  Some people probably do have the best of intentions.  But what they are saying is wrong and it ends up deceiving a lot of people who may not know where they can find out what is true.

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We are told that Satan will be “loosed for a little season” after the thousand years of peace. I believe this is necessary so that those who live during the Millennium Can have opportunity to be tested as were those who lived previously. 

Tested, yes.  And how do you suppose people will be able to pass the test?  What is it that we all need to be able to know what is true? Why do you think we are taught so much about how we all need to have our own testimony from God to be able to know what is true?

[Teancum]

On 10/15/2019 at 1:49 PM, california boy said:

I do have a few questions that someone might be able to answer.

Is tax exemption a guarantee to churches or any other group?

Doesn't a charitable organization have to show financial records to prove they are not a for profit business to qualify for tax exemption?

What is the difference between a business and a business that claims to be a charity and how is that legally determined?

 

 

 

 

 

1: No tax exemption is not a guarentee to any church or other tax exempt entity.

2: Tax exempt entities file a Form 990 annually to demonstrate they are meeting the requirements for tax exemption. These are available for public review. Tax exempt entities that receive contributions over a certain amount must also be audited by a CPA firm and the audited financial statements must be available for public review. It used to be if you receive more then $250k of contributions per year but I believe that has increased. Interestingly churches are exempted from both of these requirements though many voluntarily comply or will publicly disclose their finances. Of course the LDS Church does neither of these.

3: To become a tax exempt organization the corporation must submit a lengthy and cumbersome application with IRS using either Form 1023 or 1024. Typically the IRS will grant a provisional tax exempt status based on these Forms assuming an organizatoin appears to qualify and then review the organizations activities five years later to make sure there is continued compliance.

[Analytics]

On 10/17/2019 at 11:24 AM, Ahab said:

Yes, and anyone who chooses to pay tithing and meets the other qualifications necessary to attend temple ceremonies is qualified to attend their child's wedding in the temple if their children are qualified to be married in the temple.

My point is that something of value is in fact received in exchange for the donation. The fact that anybody can enter into the exchange doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

On 10/17/2019 at 11:24 AM, Ahab said:

Because a religious purpose qualifies as an exempt purpose under IRS code.  Weddings are still religious ceremonies, at least in some religions, even though some of them are strictly secular ceremonies.

That doesn't address the question as to whether the IRS code should favor religious ceremonies with tax advantages, nor the argument that doing so is unconstitutional. 

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My point is that something of value is in fact received in exchange for the donation. The fact that anybody can enter into the exchange doesn't mean it isn't there.

I don't dispute that.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That doesn't address the question as to whether the IRS code should favor religious ceremonies with tax advantages, nor the argument that doing so is unconstitutional. 

I'd be interested in hearing how an IRS representative would respond to that question and argument.  It is an advantage the IRS offers and I think anyone who is able to avoid paying taxes should make proper use of it.

[rockpond]

I haven't followed this thread and have little hope of catching up on 11 pages but I just wanna ask:

Has anyone pointed out that any candidate who includes this idea (removal of tax exemption for churches) in their platform has no chance of winning?

Beto O'Rourke already had no chance of winning, so I'm ignoring him.

Latest Pew research has 64% of Democrats identifying as affiliated with a religion.  38% of Democrats say that they attend church at least monthly.   Republicans are about 15-20% higher.  (Link)

Obviously there are people out there who want this implemented.  Beto's not the first and won't be the last... we need to stay vigilant but, I don't see this as a risk we currently face.

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't dispute that.

I'd be interested in hearing how an IRS representative would respond to that question and argument.  It is an advantage the IRS offers and I think anyone who is able to avoid paying taxes should make proper use of it.

Well the general idea is that non-profits, and especially religious entities like religious hospitals and relief efforts reduce the amount of tax dollars that must be paid to replace those services- St. Jude's hospital is probably a good example in what it does for sick children.  No patient accepted by the hospital pays anything if my memory serves.  All services for sick children are paid for by charitable donations.

So how much would the government have to shell out to pay for those services even if the government could or would provide equivalent services?

And what about Catholic Charities for disaster relief? and our own LDS services and all the other good that charitable organizations do which relieves the burden on the government significantly? And that is not even scratching the service.....

So clearly contributing to those organizations benefits the government quite directly.   And frankly with all the waste in government, it is doubtful that government would be capable of providing the same services for the same price.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

That doesn't address the question as to whether the IRS code should favor religious ceremonies with tax advantages, nor the argument that doing so is unconstitutional. 

Just to clarify - this is the way the argument gets confused.

The IRS code does not favor "religious ceremonies" with tax advantages it favors non-profit ORGANIZATIONS with tax advantages BECAUSE the organizations also provide SERVICES which the government would otherwise have to provide itself.

It is that kind of equivocation that stirs up the nonsensical prejudice against religion we find in easily confused people who think that religion and science are incompatible for instance.   Those folks belong back in the day of the Scopes trial.

It is a fundamentalist and pernicious thought pattern that is dangerous and totally irrational.

Edited October 18, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Obviously there are people out there who want this implemented.  Beto's not the first and won't be the last... we need to stay vigilant but, I don't see this as a risk we currently face.

The biggest risk, imo, is the more it is talked about as an option, the more it becomes normalized in people's thoughts, so there is a possibility in the future the majority will consider it a valid position to hold.

Which doesn't mean to me we should get too excited when it pops up, but staying vigilant is wise.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

With this and the gun issue, and likely even without these, Beto has no chance in getting the nomination let alone elected as president. And as a Republic I think the majority of Americans would oppose such action.

Well I don't know where are you live but I do suspect that the perspective looks a lot more likely from California that it does from Utah.