beto's attack on Christian beliefs

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That article is from Breitbart. Is there any other source for that information or is this just an effort to get people up in arms against Beto?

ETA: I now see that other news sources have also reported on this. I agree with Cimorene - he'd merely be upholding the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cimorene
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
  • Winner
Reactions: miggles
Upvote 0

Cimorene

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 7, 2016
6,262
6,018
Toronto
✟246,655.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Why do you post in General Politics which allows Atheists and non-Christians to post? Which is obvious they will support Beto.

You've confuzzled me. This is posted in a section only for Christians.

Christians should support the truth no matter what their political beliefs are. I honestly do not see this as being an attack on Christians at all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
You've confuzzled me. This is posted in a section only for Christians.

Christians should support the truth no matter what their political beliefs are. I honestly do not see this as being an attack on Christians at all.
You are right, I got confused. I guess I need more sleep. I believe there is a time and place to discuss stuff.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That he didn't attack Christian beliefs at all. He defended the law which is exactly what he should do.

How do you see this as defending the law? I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, but this strikes me as an out-right violation of the Establishment Clause, since the government pressuring religious institutions to not "oppose same-sex marriage" entails a very clear attempted state interference in religious doctrines. That is absolutely unconstitutional.

If O'Rourke were more specific about what types of opposition do and do not count as discrimination, perhaps he could get around the clear constitutional issues with a comment like this, but the statement as it stands is extremely broad. It could apply to any church that so much as refused to perform same-sex marriages.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He’s saying anything now to catch up in the polls. Tax exempt status for churches and other truly charity organizations helps defer many costs at the local and state level. Someone needs to educate Beto on this.

Most shelters, soup kitchens, half way homes, homeless programs are run by churches and other charities. The federal tax empt status helps these ministries keep the programs going.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rigatoni

Redeemed Resident Italian
Supporter
Jan 25, 2014
3,922
6,018
Southern U.S.
✟222,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I don't see this as an attack. Although, I think there's a major issue here with the use of the term "discriminate" in his statement. Upholding biblical values and refusing to promote what is against those values is not discrimination. Someone could walk into a church and demand free money from donations, but denying them doesn't mean the church is discriminating or breaking the law. What constitutes discrimination needs to be clearly established.

I just read what would classify as valid grounds for a church losing tax exempt status, and I don't see how opposing same-sex marriage would violate the law, especially when a gay couple can just get married by the justice of the peace. This is bullying churches into adopting beliefs contrary to what they've always held. Removing 501(c) standing for something most churches wouldn't comply with could also have a devastating impact on churches in general.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Bc it's literally defending the law.

You can't be literally defending the law if you're literally unconstitutional. Telling a religious institution that it cannot be morally opposed to same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

This is a First Amendment issue. If a church is refusing to offer material aid to people based on sexual orientation, then yes, I would argue that would be discrimination, but O'Rourke's statement is much broader than that. The government has no legitimate interest in dictating to any religious organization what its doctrines ought to be, hence this is unconstitutional.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't see this as an attack. Although, I think there's a major issue here with the use of the term "discriminate" in his statement. Upholding biblical values and refusing to promote what is against those values is not discrimination. Someone could walk into a church and demand free money from donations, but denying them doesn't mean the church is discriminating or breaking the law. What constitutes discrimination needs to be clearly established.

I just read what would classify as valid grounds for a church losing tax exempt status, and I don't see how opposing same-sex marriage would violate the law, especially when a gay couple can just get married by the justice of the peace. This is bullying churches into adopting beliefs contrary to what they've always held. Removing 501(c) standing for something most churches wouldn't comply with could also have a devastating impact on churches in general.
As the Catholics say, maybe he was just poorly catechized. :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Rigatoni
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As a general note. The Federal gov can do what they will with the money collected from private citizens. If churches are cut off from exempt status then the people have every right to vote those politicians out of office.

So a President Beto can just tell the IRS to start collecting taxes on Christian churches. He would not be breaking any laws. What he would be doing is hamstringing the actual Christian churches and ministries which pour in millions of dollars into city and county and state programs which help people out.

As a side note...my church does not check the block. We don’t take the exemption. And we are a relatively small church.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So a President Beto can just tell the IRS to start collecting taxes on Christian churches. He would not be breaking any laws.

I don't think this is quite true. If you are collecting taxes on (conservative) Christian churches but not on other types of religious institutions, then the state is favoring certain religious organizations over others. That is in violation of the Establishment Clause. The only way to do something like this without breaking any laws would be to eliminate tax-exempt status on all religious organizations across the board, whether they are in agreement with you on the issue of same-sex marriage or not.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Knee V
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think this is quite true. If you are collecting taxes on (conservative) Christian churches but not on other types of religious institutions, then the state is favoring certain religious organizations over others. That is in violation of the Establishment Clause. The only way to do something like this without breaking any laws would be to eliminate tax-exempt status on all religious organizations across the board, whether they are in agreement with you on the issue of same-sex marriage or not.
It would be interesting to see the lawsuits and federal courts deal with this. I guess if he did do the pick and choose, it would be obvious the establishment clause could be invoked as he would be favoring some churches over others.

So that’s an excellent point.

Yet most if not all of the Democrats running for President in 2020 would probably run with Beto’s talking point.


Franklin Graham mentioned without local church support in bodies and money initial disaster response would be nonexistent.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yet most if not all of the Democrats running for President in 2020 would probably run with Beto’s talking point.

I hope not! I think most would limit themselves to opposing invoking freedom of religion to justify concrete acts of discrimination--denying people service at restaurants, housing, etc. I would expect the genuine contenders to be more literate about things like the Constitution than this.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums