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

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

People will be more willing and able to give the church 10% of their income if there is a tax deduction or an equivalent direct subsidy to incentivize them to do so. That is the point--churches want donations to be tax deductible because tax deductions distort the market towards higher tithing payments in exactly the same way that a direct cash subsidy conditional on paying tithing would distort the market and result in higher tithing payments.

Bracketing the issue about whether subsidizing religion is constitutional, maybe it is good for society to distort the free market with subsidies in favor of donating money to religion. But it would be a lot easier to evaluate that question if the churches were required disclose their finances.

Ideally, virtually all tax exemptions and tax deductions should be abolished, everyone's tax rates should be dramatically lowered, and then being free from the obligations of being subsidized by the government, churches should be free to fully engage in politics (and to be secretive about their finances without any objection from me).

Non profitS soliciting donates aren't really a market, they are free will donations. In fact the irs requires a statement that no goods or services are recieved in order for a deduction to be valid as a tax deduction.  No one makes money from a charitable deduction. They cost money.  Every once in a while someone will ask me what the best tax deduction is and I always respond that the best deduction is the fees I charge.  If they want a bigger deduction, I would  e happy to increase my fee to increase their tax deductions. 

That usually drives the point that tax deductions cost money, they don't save money. 

Charitable donations are even worse since you can't get any good or service from them.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

From what I can see in your comments to Klindey it seems to me that you have a very narrow view of what it means for people to lead other people to Christ, or for what people should do when they have been led to Christ.

For me, living as a disciple of Jesus Christ and trying to lead others to him means talking about and promoting ideas to suggest that people should live as he wants us to live, which also involves not doing particular things which he regards as sinful behavior.

That's basically all we are doing, and we try to do that in several ways, including voting on issues that affect how we live or should be living our lives.

What does it mean to you?  What problem do you really have with what we are saying or what we are doing to live as we believe Jesus wants us to live?  I'd really appreciate it if you would just tell me and describe what you really expect from us?

Well what I think is pretty basic is you want them to attend church where they can learn about Christ.  With millions walking away from organized religion, then church becomes irrelevant.  For the first time in history, the largest religion in America is no religious affiliation.

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I am not sure your assumption is valid. The decline of European churches has been as dramatic, if not more so, and it has not been because religions have become more political similar to the Moral Majority. 

As an aside, I support your position that churches should stay out of politics i.e. supporting candidates and electing specific individuals. I think churches should be allowed to comment on moral issues and government actions that directly conflict with beliefs and the rights of churches to exist. 

It isn't an assumption on my part.  It is part of the findings of the Gallup survey.  Did you read this part in their report?

Quote

One might conclude that faith leaders who have morphed into political lobbyists, cultural warriors and partisan cheerleaders have neglected their core role. To the extent younger generations are more progressive politically, they may now look upon religious sects as akin to political parties or political action committees, with which they choose not to affiliate.

 

[Jake Starkey]

A goodly portion of America was unchurched closing on 1800, but that did not mean the great majority were not believers in God any more than today.

A good background on that for comparison to the 'unchurching' today is found at https://madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/a-christian-america-what-history-shows/.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Non profitS soliciting donates aren't really a market, they are free will donations. In fact the irs requires a statement that no goods or services are recieved in order for a deduction to be valid as a tax deduction.  No one makes money from a charitable deduction. They cost money.  Every once in a while someone will ask me what the best tax deduction is and I always respond that the best deduction is the fees I charge.  If they want a bigger deduction, I would  e happy to increase my fee to increase their tax deductions. 

That usually drives the point that tax deductions cost money, they don't save money. 

Charitable donations are even worse since you can't get any good or service from them.

The devil is in the details. For example, you have to pay tithing to attend your child's temple wedding, which is funded by tax-deducted charitable contributions. While attending your child's wedding isn't a "good" or "service" per se, it is something of value that people can and do make tax-deductible tithing payments to receive. This raises the question of why the tax law should subsidize religious weddings but not secular ones.

More to your point, classical economists would argue that by definition, people receive economic utility from the money they give to charity. Otherwise, they wouldn't pay it. You could have a production possibilities curve defined by "religion and butter" just as easily as one defined by "guns and butter." 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The devil is in the details. For example, you have to pay tithing to attend your child's temple wedding, which is funded by tax-deducted charitable contributions. While attending your child's wedding isn't a "good" or "service" per se, it is something of value that people can and do make tax-deductible tithing payments to receive. This raises the question of why the tax law should subsidize religious weddings but not secular ones.

More to your point, classical economists would argue that by definition, people receive economic utility from the money they give to charity. Otherwise, they wouldn't pay it. You could have a production possibilities curve defined by "religion and butter" just as easily as one defined by "guns and butter." 

So what is the proper ratio of guns to butter when you build your food storage?

Edited October 17, 2019 by The Nehor

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

It isn't an assumption on my part.  It is part of the findings of the Gallup survey.  Did you read this part in their report?

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.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

It isn't an assumption on my part.  It is part of the findings of the Gallup survey.  Did you read this part in their report?

Quote

One might conclude that faith leaders who have morphed into political lobbyists, cultural warriors and partisan cheerleaders have neglected their core role. To the extent younger generations are more progressive politically, they may now look upon religious sects as akin to political parties or political action committees, with which they choose not to affiliate.

 

How is it you think this applies to the Church?

Moreover, how is Gallup's editorializing ("One might conclude...") meaningful?

Also, religiosity has gone down significantly in Europe and many other places in the World.  I'm not sure how much of that can be attributed to American religious leaders' purported involvement in politics.

Sounds like it is an assumption on your part, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 17, 2019 by smac97

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

Well what I think is pretty basic is you want them to attend church where they can learn about Christ.  With millions walking away from organized religion, then church becomes irrelevant.  For the first time in history, the largest religion in America is no religious affiliation.

 

It's not just about attending Church meetings on Sunday, though, so the focus should not just be on getting people to come to Church meetings. Being a disciple of Jesus Christ is a 24/7 kind of thing and the goal is to live as Jesus Christ wants us to live.  We just tell other people what we know about him and hope they will choose to become his disciple, again 24/7.  If people don't want to do that then that is their choice and we try to respect their decision as the way they are choosing to live their own life, whatever they choose to do instead.

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

While attending your child's wedding isn't a "good" or "service" per se, it is something of value that people can and do make tax-deductible tithing payments to receive.

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.

 

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

This raises the question of why the tax law should subsidize religious weddings but not secular ones.

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.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Ahab

[smac97]

On 10/15/2019 at 2:05 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Not unsettling at all, Spencer.  These efforts by failed candidates to gain attention are doomed to abject failure legislatively and in federal court.  It is just unconstitutional.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

It isn't an assumption on my part.  It is part of the findings of the Gallup survey.  Did you read this part in their report?

 

I just searched back through this thread for your Gallup link but was unsuccessful. Would you mind posting it again? 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quote

 

Quote

It isn't an assumption on my part.  It is part of the findings of the Gallup survey.  Did you read this part in their report?

One might conclude that faith leaders who have morphed into political lobbyists, cultural warriors and partisan cheerleaders have neglected their core role. To the extent younger generations are more progressive politically, they may now look upon religious sects as akin to political parties or political action committees, with which they choose not to affiliate.

 

I just searched back through this thread for your Gallup link but was unsuccessful. Would you mind posting it again? 

Huh.  It turns out that "this part of their [Gallup's] report" is not part of the report, but is instead part of an opinion piece written by The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

It isn't an assumption on my part.  It is part of the findings of the Gallup survey.  Did you read this part in their report?

 

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

How is it you think this applies to the Church?

Moreover, how is Gallup's editorializing ("One might conclude...") meaningful?

Also, religiosity has gone down significantly in Europe and many other places in the World.  I'm not sure how much of that can be attributed to American religious leaders' purported involvement in politics.

Sounds like it is an assumption on your part, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

[To California Boy:]I just searched back through this thread for your Gallup link but was unsuccessful. Would you mind posting it again? 

Never mind. I looked it up myself through a Google search.

The statement you keep inaccurately asserting is "part of the findings of the Gallup survey" is actually part of a column in the Washington Post written by "opinion writer" Jennifer Rubin. She does cite the Gallup survey in her column, but she does not speak for the Gallup organization, nor is the commentary you quoted from her "part of the findings of the Gallup survey."

I got suspicious when I read your remark, because Gallup, being a polling organization, engages in polling, not political punditry or opinion writing. They leave that sort of thing to political pundits and newspaper opinion writers. 

The most charitable thing I can say about what you have done here is that you have been careless and misleading in your attribution. Even Smac, who is highly intelligent, was misled by your comment into thinking this was "Gallup's editorializing" rather than what it actually is, editorializing by an opinion writer at the Washington Post.

Incidentally, here's the link to Rubin's piece in the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/15/organized-religion-is-paying-price/

Edited to add: Smac posted the same information minutes before I did. 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  It turns out that "this part of their [Gallup's] report" is not part of the report, but is instead part of an opinion piece written by The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin.

Thanks,

-Smac

I just found and reported the same thing, but you're too quick on the draw for me, Smac! 

[Jake Starkey]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Why?  We accepted polygamy for a long, long time.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Quote

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Why?  We accepted polygamy for a long, long time.

I thought it would be obvious, but here goes: But the normalization of what-used-to-be-extreme positions regarding and hostile to religious liberty remains unsettling.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jake Starkey]

You are, I think, extending religious liberty to interfere with the liberty of others.

 

[smac97]

Just now, Jake Starkey said:

You are, I think, extending religious liberty to interfere with the liberty of others.

This thread is about Mr. O'Rourke's threat to punish religious groups who "oppose same-sex marriage."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Jake Starkey said:

You are, I think, extending religious liberty to interfere with the liberty of others.

 

Their liberty to do what? Be cavalier about religious liberty?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

This thread is about Mr. O'Rourke's threat to punish religious groups who "oppose same-sex marriage."

Thanks,

-Smac

... but only when their opposition to same-sex marriage "denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us".

That is how he couched it when he said: "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."

I think we should be careful when trying to understand what he meant when he said what he said.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

... but only when their opposition to same-sex marriage "denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us".

That is how he couched it when he said: "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."

I think we should be careful when trying to understand what he meant when he said what he said.

 

Then he needs to clarify what he means by "denies." Does holding an opinion deny their human rights? Does teaching in our congregations that homosexual behavior is morally wrong deny their human rights?

 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Quote

This thread is about Mr. O'Rourke's threat to punish religious groups who "oppose same-sex marriage."

Thanks,

-Smac

... but only when their opposition to same-sex marriage "denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us".

What does that mean?  Seems like there it a lot of wiggle room in that.  Lots of subjectivity.  

Quote

That is how he couched it when he said: "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."

So what actions by a religious group would "President "O'Rourke" construe as "den{ying} the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us?"

We don't know.

From ABC News:

Quote

Lemon asked O'Rourke if religious institutions — schools, churches, or charities — should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.

The presidential candidate answered "yes" to the applause of a Los Angeles crowd organized by the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest LGBTQ equality organization.

"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," O'Rourke said. "And so as president, we're going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans."

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.

Quote

I think we should be careful when trying to understand what he meant when he said what he said.

I also don't think we should blithely ignore such an obvious shot across the bow.

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

Edited October 17, 2019 by smac97

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What does that mean?  Seems like there it a lot of wiggle room in that.  Lots of subjectivity.  

So what actions by a religious group would "President "O'Rourke" construe as "den{ying} the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us?"

We don't know.

From ABC News:

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.

I also don't think we should blithely ignore such an obvious shot across the bow.

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

Part of what he objects to, I think, is people in religious organizations who continue to try to have some rights taken away from people who want to marry people of the same sex.  Religious organizations which may be violating IRS codes by using tax exempt funds to support politicians who want to take away people's right to marry people of the same sex.  Religious organizations are not supposed to be doing that with those tax exempt funds.  There are limits to what they can do if they want to retain tax exempt status, and if they go beyond those limits they are not qualified to retain that status.

Like I said before, I think our Church is okay and is not going beyond those limits, but there are other religious organizations that may be going beyond those limits and, if they are, according to IRS code they should not qualify for tax exempt status.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Ahab

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Part of what he objects to, I think, is people in religious organizations who continue to try to have some rights taken away from people who want to marry people of the same sex.

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?

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Religious organizations which may be violating IRS codes by using tax exempt funds to support politicians who want to take away people's right to marry people of the same sex. 

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

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Religious organizations are not supposed to be doing that with those tax exempt funds. 

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

Quote

CNN’S DON LEMON: Congressman, I want to ask you a question. This is from your LGBTQ plan, and here’s what you write. This is a quote. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right but it should not be used to discriminate. Do you think religious institutions, like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?

BETO O’ROURKE: Yes.

(APPLAUSE)

 

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. And so as president, we’re going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.

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?

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There are limits to what they can do if they want to retain tax exempt status, and if they go beyond those limits they are not qualified to retain that status.

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