• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

beto's attack on Christian beliefs

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by miggles, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:35 PM.

  1. miggles

    miggles miggles

    +442
    United States
    Methodist
    Single
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Cimorene

    Cimorene Ciao! Supporter

    +4,510
    Canada
    Methodist
    Private
    That he didn't attack Christian beliefs at all. He defended the law which is exactly what he should do.
     
  3. mkgal1

    mkgal1 His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33 Supporter

    +4,912
    Anglican
    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.
     
  4. David Neos

    David Neos Catechumen

    +3,590
    Ecuador
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
  5. Cimorene

    Cimorene Ciao! Supporter

    +4,510
    Canada
    Methodist
    Private
    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.
     
  6. David Neos

    David Neos Catechumen

    +3,590
    Ecuador
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    You are right, I got confused. I guess I need more sleep. I believe there is a time and place to discuss stuff.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  7. Cimorene

    Cimorene Ciao! Supporter

    +4,510
    Canada
    Methodist
    Private
    Story of my life. :) :)
     
  8. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,498
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  9. Cimorene

    Cimorene Ciao! Supporter

    +4,510
    Canada
    Methodist
    Private
    :sohappy:
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019 at 12:08 AM
  10. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,501
    United States
    Christian
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  11. Anthony7

    Anthony7 Rigatoni

    +4,607
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Others
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  12. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,498
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  13. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,501
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    As the Catholics say, maybe he was just poorly catechized. :)
     
  14. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,501
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I think the question and answer was too broad to judge whether or not any laws other than actually the First Amendment is involved.
     
  15. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,501
    United States
    Christian
    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.
     
  16. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,501
    United States
    Christian
    Married
  17. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,498
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  18. friend of

    friend of Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,899
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Beto is an utter degenerate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  19. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,501
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  20. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,498
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
Loading...