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

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said:

Just a question from afar!  Is this not taken care of by the Church having stated that you can get married outside the Temple then be sealed right away.  Could not the Church say they no longer perform marriages just sealings that are purely religious.

I think the Church wants to retain the option of performing the marriage and the sealing at the same time. In fact, it should happen otherwise only under extenuating circumstances. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In any case this thread is designed to stir up anger and distaste and I am too burnt out to care much about the latest outrageous thing someone said.

I'm not an American, so I don't have a pony in this particular race, but living prophets have repeatedly asked us to pay attention to threats to religious liberty, and I would therefore consider myself foolish if I did not do so. In the lead-up to our last national election, a 'progressive' member of the opposition promised us that, in government, she would ban the teaching of repentance by churches because the idea that people can change is a tool used to oppress sexual minorities. Crazy? Yes. A real threat -- both in the present and of what is to come -- that we here need to be aware of? Absolutely.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

It hit the mark squarely before your second post. But if you want to qualify your remark to only pertain to a president, then can I assume you are okay with powerful organizations using their influence to have legislation passed or candidates elected that only benefits them? 

I have some issues with the lobbying process (among other things when hiding the process, imbalanced due to wealth as opposed to numbers of voters) so that would depend on the case. 

If they are honest in the campaign about what the candidate will do, then I have no inherent problem in the sense they have the right just like everyone else to try and influence their greater community to vote their way (using legal methods).

[Jake Starkey]

As the population and culture continue to secularize, the push back against, and by, the evangelicals and Mormons (in Utah, e. g.) will continue to grow.  For instance, the Prop 8 battle in CA led by the LDS made many non-LDS (and a few LDS) think the LDS Church cares not for human or civil rights if it contravenes LDS teachings, such as on LGBTQ+ marriage and adoption issues.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Nice "inalienable" right you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it ... '

Yeah, except he was less subtle than a mobster.

10 hours ago, california boy said:

But I think it is a stretch to claim that a tax exemption is an inalienable right.

Sort of, I don't think the courts have ever ruled decisively on this. Tax exemption goes back to British Common Law. Charitable organizations also usually got it. It wasn't codified until the late 1800s when we created the general tax-exempt umbrella for charities, churches, and other organizations that at least ostensibly provide something to the public. There was also no law against these non-profits speaking out on politics. Many were heavily involved in lobbying for change for various causes like penal reform, child labor, election reform, prohibition, women's right to vote, and even targeting political corruption. Many also advocated against or for slavery. 

In 1934 the Revenue Act limited tax exempt organizations a little. Then in 1954 the Johnson Amendment entered law as part of  IRS bill. It passed almost unnoticed and without controversy and debate and it limits much more what tax-exempt organizations can do politically. There are several theories who Senator Johnson inserted it. Some said it was a wise way of limiting what the organizations can do to keep them non-political so they cannot be used as easily as political weapons and do not make as alluring political targets. Some think it was concern about Communism or McCarthyism and organizations caught up in that. I favor the theory that Senator Johnson was ticked that one of his competitors was helped by two tax exempt organizations in the last election and he wanted to make sure it did not happen again. 

The IRS has issued general guidelines. To my knowledge the Supreme Court has never spoken on the legality of this. There is an argument to be made the proviso is a violation of free speech. There is also an argument that tax exemption is a shield for churches and organizations and it goes both ways. Trump has promised to destroy the amendment. Legislation was introduced to repeal it but it has not passed, the Senate shot it down under the Byrd rule because of the legislation it was packaged with. Trump did issue an executive order mandating that churches should be judged by the same standards as secular organizations. This is largely meaningless as churches have always been given more leeway by the IRS in this area compared to secular charities.

It seems enshrined in US tradition to allow churches and philanthropic organizations to not be taxed. The limits on political speech are newer but there are arguments for them. While it is currently the law on the federal and state level to allow tax exemptions the Supreme Court has not, to my knowledge, weighed in on this. A ruling that churches are exempt from taxation under the First Amendment might be healthy but I doubt it will happen. As it currently stands Congress could repeal the tax-exempt legislation and all churches and other organizations qualifying would lose their federal tax exemption but not the state one. Seems unlikely as that would cause chaos.

Edited October 16, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not an American, so I don't have a pony in this particular race, but living prophets have repeatedly asked us to pay attention to threats to religious liberty, and I would therefore consider myself foolish if I did not do so. In the lead-up to our last national election, a 'progressive' member of the opposition promised us that, in government, she would ban the teaching of repentance by churches because the idea that people can change is a tool used to oppress sexual minorities. Crazy? Yes. A real threat -- both in the present and of what is to come -- that we here need to be aware of? Absolutely.

It is not so much paying attention that they are worried about. It is working with leaders to reach amicable agreements that protect the rights of all. I try to follow this counsel on the local level where I actually can have an impact. On the federal level I am just an observer and just being aware seems useless unless it is a vote I can participate in. In the next federal and state elections I do not hold out much hope for people I want to support. There are some at the local level I trust though.

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Everything written into the Constitution is subject to revision by the amendment process if enough people share any point of view.

So what you are saying is that instead of DOMA, the overwhelming majority of Americans should have passed a constitutional amendment. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not so much paying attention that they are worried about. It is working with leaders to reach amicable agreements that protect the rights of all.

I believe the second of these is dependent on first having done the first of these.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, you don't. You have repeatedly expressed your disgust on this forum with religious people having opinions you dislike and then utilising their guaranteed rights to free assembly, free expression and public religious practice to discuss and act on those opinions, in community with like-minded others, in any kind of unified or organised (i.e. effective) way. You did it again in your very thinly veiled threat above. 

'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

'Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association'.

The sole purpose and inevitable outcome of 'taxing' any of the above would be to hamper and discourage the free exercise of the same.

Unless you're willing to argue that the sole purpose and inevitable outcome of taxing voting wasn't to hamper and discourage the free exercise of that right?

I'm curious. Are there any other universal human rights you're comfortable interfering with through the threat of punitive taxation?

CFR i have ever said that religion doesn't have the right to freedom of opinion or expression.  You are completely wrong.  

What I have done is referred to several articles written about the price religion is paying for their support of candidates that have no morals or honesty.  Even the articles I have linked to do not suggest that religion  does not have a right to freedom of opinion or expression.  They only say, there may be consequences for so closely intwining religion with particular candidates.  I personally happen to agree with those conclusions because I am seeing more and more hostility towards the involvement of religion in the political machinery.  It is NOT just expressing opinions on political issues.  And that is the issue.

I am not even suggesting that churches should be taxed.  If you are getting that out of my posts, then you are not understanding my point.  If you can not see the effect religion politics is causing, then just ignore mine and others that are reporting these observations.  

 

[california boy]

46 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

As the population and culture continue to secularize, the push back against, and by, the evangelicals and Mormons (in Utah, e. g.) will continue to grow.  For instance, the Prop 8 battle in CA led by the LDS made many non-LDS (and a few LDS) think the LDS Church cares not for human or civil rights if it contravenes LDS teachings, such as on LGBTQ+ marriage and adoption issues.

Exactly.  And this is my point.  To pretend there has been no fallout against the Church because of it's political activism is just denial of what has happened, at least in California.  Did the Church have to Constitutional right to support Prop 8.  ABSOLUTELY.  The Church has every right to fight to take away someone's civil rights if it fits their agenda.  What the Church can not control is people's reactions to such political activism.  And the same applies to the current activism being practiced mostly by evangelic churches and their current support of particular candidates at all costs..  

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So what you are saying is that instead of DOMA, the overwhelming majority of Americans should have passed a constitutional amendment. 

NO. I am not saying that. I am also NOT saying that a constitutional amendment taking away church tax exemption should happen.  I am only saying that support for such repeal of tax exemption seems to be building as a result of religious political activism.  Does anyone but me see a increase, though still very small, support for removal of tax exemptions of churches?

DOMA should have never been passed.  It was a law that was unconstitutional directed at taking away the civil rights of a minority.  Those that passed DOMA really didn't care about the civil rights of others, they only cared about forcing their belief of marriage on everyone.  Religious beliefs played a very big part in getting DOMA passed.  People don't always forget that role religion played from the very beginning on it's role in denying marriage to gay couples.

Edited October 16, 2019 by california boy

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

NO. I am not saying that. I am also NOT saying that a constitutional amendment taking away church tax exemption should happen.  I am only saying that support for such repeal of tax exemption seems to be building as a result of religious political activism.  Does anyone but me see a increase, though still very small, support for removal of tax exemptions of churches?

I think that any attempt to distinguish "religious political activism" from "political activism" is fallacious.  Why would activism based on religious beliefs be any different from activism based on any other belief or value?

It would be like me saying, "Gee, it's a shame that violence against LGBT continues to happen, but what else can you expect after all that gay activism? Now I'm not saying the LGBT community didn't have the right to be active in promoting their rights, just that the LGBT community cannot control the reaction to their political activism."

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

CFR i have ever said that religion doesn't have the right to freedom of opinion or expression. 

Oh, no. You've always been very careful not to say that. You prefer instead to dutifully warn religious people of the repercussions they will almost certainly face if they keep being uppity enough to insist on actually exercising their rights.

[kllindley]

It amazes me that some people can so cavalierly talk about removing tax exemptions for religion, but don't seem to see any problem with organizations like Planned Parenthood being a tax exempt organization.  Or the HRC. Or the Sierra Club. Or The SPLC. And yet these all engage in significant political activism.  I generally disagree with that activism.  But I don't call for them to lose their tax exemption. 

[Jake Starkey]

45 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Oh, no. You've always been very careful not to say that. You prefer instead to dutifully warn religious people of the repercussions they will almost certainly face if they keep being uppity enough to insist on actually exercising their rights.

You have the right to believe as you do, yes, but you do not have the authority to enforce your right on others.  Those days are over.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

You have the right to believe as you do, yes, but you do not have the authority to enforce your right on others.  Those days are over.

Oh, the irony.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I believe the second of these is dependent on first having done the first of these.

No, I am talking about objectives and what they want us to do. They want us to reach those agreements so stay informed about areas you can influence and votes you can influence. I don't think knowing what a hopefully soon to be defunct Democratic primary candidate says will help.

[Hamba Tuhan]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, I am talking about objectives and what they want us to do.

Lift Where You Stand: 10 Ways to Protect Religious Freedom

'1. Study up on the issues. Study the words of the living Apostles on religious freedom and moral issues. Read responsible websites, newspapers, magazines, and blogs that explore current events from a variety of perspectives, asking God to let the Spirit help you discern truth ...

'10. Enlarge your voice through social media. Be persuasive by being civil in online conversations; the person who gets angry loses. Share appropriate links, stories, photos, articles, and personal experiences on social media'.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

It amazes me that some people can so cavalierly talk about removing tax exemptions for religion, but don't seem to see any problem with organizations like Planned Parenthood being a tax exempt organization.  Or the HRC. Or the Sierra Club. Or The SPLC. And yet these all engage in significant political activism.  I generally disagree with that activism.  But I don't call for them to lose their tax exemption. 

The people who call for the removal of the tax exempt status tend to me more liberal so of course they will overlook what leftist leaning organizations do.

[carbon dioxide]

Beto is clearly losing it.  Tonight he pretty much called every owner of an AR-15 or AK-47 as a potential threat.  99.9% owners are good citizens but to Beto and others even if 99.9999% of AR-15 owners are good citizens, all it takes is the handful of nuts and everyone needs to be punished.  Beto will be out of the the race soon.  He is just making crazy statements to get noticed.

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Beto will be out of the the race soon.

What response did he get from the audience when he threatened to use taxes to punish faiths that won't bow down to his preferred image?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What response did he get from the audience when he threatened to use taxes to punish faiths that won't bow down to his preferred image?

Applause and cheers. I have watched a governor announce the number of people that were executed while they were in office and heard the crowd cheer.

Horrible people go to the rallies and events of horrible people. Is that surprising?

Edited October 16, 2019 by The Nehor

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Horrible people go to the rallies and events of horrible people. Is that surprising?

No, not at all. But it does mean that the horribleness is larger than a single individual and is unlikely to just go away when that individual goes away.

 

[Jake Starkey]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, the irony.

There is no irony, only the numbers have swung the other way.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

Except you are completely ignoring why this idea seems to be gaining momentum.  HIs opinion is not in a vacuum.  Audience response indicated that there seems to be more and more people questioning the "special" place religion has always held and perhaps the past reasons for that special place is corroding away by the direction and actions organized religion has taken in politics.

Ignoring the root cause of where this is coming from is not going to make the issue go away. In fact, it may very well continue to gain traction unless fundamental changes are made on how religion has gotten very hands on in the political process.  Of course they have every right to be involved in politics as long as they are within the law.  But that doesn't mean people, at some point, will have had enough of their behavior in politics while religion still demands tax exemption. 

Everything written into the Constitution is subject to revision by the amendment process if enough people share any point of view. At this point, a constitutional amendment looks pretty slim.  20 years from now, with more and more people walking away from religion, and more and more people feeling religion is playing two sides of the fence, the possibility may very well change those odds.

Excellently articulated, california boy.  I'm surprised (Perhaps shouldn't be) by the responses you are getting to try and minimize your viewpoint.  I'm finding myself agreeing with you (no surprises there) and see the responses silly.  No one's saying "religious organizations will be punished because of the content of their viewpoint" or whatever.  We've gotten to the absurd.  In the case of the LDS Church inserting it's efforts into the political arena as it pertains to the issue of gay marriage, it is no wonder people would question the special place religion has held when it comes to tax exemption.  A religion preaching what it claims is true vs a religion inserting itself into politics in hopes to sway political ends are two different things.