Beto calls for state approved religion.

MayCaesar

It does not seem to me that what he calls for is a state-approved religion. He wants instead to stop exempting from taxes those churches that refuse to organise gay marriages - which, while a silly proposal, has nothing to do with religion itself.

My opinion is, tax exemptions should not exist in principle (as are taxes themselves, but that is a different matter). Let everyone play by the same rules, or have no rules at all.

The anti-discrimination laws in the US are one of the worst parts of the legal system. Business owners should be able to decide for themselves which services they want to provide and who they want to interact with. That goes for both negative and positive discrimination; all the privileges people get by just saying, "I follow religion X", should not be a thing. I am all for religious freedom, but religious freedom should not give someone extra rights that non-religious people do not have.

What if someone invents a religion in which one of the essential practices is dropping hydrogen bombs on major cities? Should we respect people's freedom to exercise this practice? Obviously not, and the fact that it is a part of their religion changes nothing. Their religion is horrible, and if they do not accept this fact, then they can go practice it on the Moon, where nobody is going to be affected by it.

Similarly, if a church does not want to organise gay marriages, then it should be left alone. There is plenty of churches around then do, and even if that was not the case, one does not have to marry through a church in the first place. In fact, marrying through a church seems to be a relic of ancient times, and people should grow out of it. If you want to spend your life with someone, then you do not need an approval of the God or her disciples; you only need to know that you love each other and want to be together. It is a business between you, and it should not be affected by others' opinion.

Politicians surely like telling us what we can or cannot do, and how all the restrictions are for our own good. I think though that it should be the other way around; it is us who should tell the politicians what they can or cannot do. They are our paid employees, and should either do our bidding, or resign.

YeshuaBought

@MayCaesar Religious liberty is a basic human right. Christians have the right to not participate in activities called sin by the Bible. The government has no right to dictate any religion, let alone Christianity.

SkepticalOne

YeshuaBought said:

@MayCaesar Religious liberty is a basic human right. Christians have the right to not participate in activities called sin by the Bible. The government has no right to dictate any religion, let alone Christianity.

First, let me be clear I do not agree with Beto. He basically suggested that tax exemption should be revoked for beliefs. People should be free to believe (and express) whatever they like. Thats a core principle of our country- freedom of thought. On the other hand, belief (religious or otherwise) provides absolutely no justification for denying the rights of others. In short, if you feel homosexuality is a sin you can believe it all you want, but the second you take actions which reject the humanity of another you've crossed the line.

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

First, let me be clear I do not agree with Beto. He basically suggested that tax exemption should be revoked for beliefs. People should be free to believe (and express) whatever they like. Thats a core principle of our country- freedom of thought. On the other hand, belief (religious or otherwise) provides absolutely no justification for denying the rights of others. In short, if you feel homosexuality is a sin you can believe it all you want, but the second you take actions which reject the humanity of another you've crossed the line.

What "right" was being denied?

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

First, let me be clear I do not agree with Beto. He basically suggested that tax exemption should be revoked for beliefs. People should be free to believe (and express) whatever they like. Thats a core principle of our country- freedom of thought. On the other hand, belief (religious or otherwise) provides absolutely no justification for denying the rights of others. In short, if you feel homosexuality is a sin you can believe it all you want, but the second you take actions which reject the humanity of another you've crossed the line.

What "right" was being denied?

Ask yourself what right you have to be heterosexual and you'll find the answer.

MayCaesar

@SkepticalOne

Well, that right is not being infringed on. The right to be heterosexual/homosexual and the right to be able to have a marriage sponsored by any church of your choice are two different things.

My point earlier was that it is often done the other way around: someone violates, say, the job contract by not showing up at work, because, for example, their religion prohibits them from working on weekends - and then receives governmental protection from being fired because of the awful anti-discrimination laws, that, in actuality, are pro-discrimination laws.

SkepticalOne

MayCaesar said:

@SkepticalOne

Well, that right is not being infringed on. 

I suggest you need to do more research on this subject. [Link] When organizations are pushing legislation it is no longer just a matter of belief, but religiously motivated action which infringes (or attempts to infringe) upon the rights of others. *I said nothing about marriage in churches*.

MayCaesar

@SkepticalOne

I do not think such a legislation should be needed in the first place. Churches should have business freedom by default to deny any service to anyone for any reason. What I do object to in this regard is when such business freedoms are given to some organisations preferentially, such as churches being exempt from taxes by default, while, say, grocery stores are not. Either give tax exemption to everyone, or to no one (the former is better than the latter, but the latter is still better than the current crony system).

Religious anti-discrimination laws are wrong, but so are, for example, LGBT anti-discrimination laws. Let businesses discriminate, and let individuals choose what businesses to interact with. No business should be obliged to organise weddings upon request, and no individual should be forced into choosing a particular organisation to have a wedding serviced by.

I am aware that there is a lot of cronyism in place, but cronyism still does not excuse anti-discrimination laws. Even if rejection of anti-discrimination laws is lobbied by enterpreneurs for selfish reasons, it does not mean that in itself this rejection is wrong.

SkepticalOne

@MayCaesar

Non-profits are not businesses. They are generally organizations built to advocate for beliefs or causes. I believe there is a place for tax-exemption in this case. However, I personally think it would be better for everyone if churches weren't tax exempt - especially given how (inappropriately) intertwined religion and state has become.

Additionally, LGBT is not a choice nor is it merely a thought that can be argued away. It is an aspect of humanity like skin color. Suffice to say, I don't accept the underlying premise that homosexuality and religious belief stand on equal and opposite defensive positions. If I think an aspect of your humanity is an abomination and refuse to treat you as other humans, then I am wrong and the government (in its duty to ensure life liberty and the pursuit) should step in. Remove tax-exempt status for organization which lobby against equal treatment.

As an aside, imagine the absurdity of someone arguing their right (other than religion) is sufficient reason to legislate against another's right. It is just as absurd when this is done with religion as the feux justification, but people generally look the other way so long as it doesn't affect them personally.

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

Ask yourself what right you have to be heterosexual and you'll find the answer.

No, it really doesn't.  I know a lot of heterosexual people that are married and a lot that aren't married.  The act of being married had nothing to do with their sexuality.  Please make your point.

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

Ask yourself what right you have to be heterosexual and you'll find the answer.

No, it really doesn't.  I know a lot of heterosexual people that are married and a lot that aren't married.  The act of being married had nothing to do with their sexuality.  Please make your point.

I said nothing about marriage. Revisit my challenge.

SkepticalOne

I can assure you that no kingdom has ever had as many civil wars as the kingdom of Christ. - Montesquieu

SkepticalOne

How do you add a signature!?

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

I said nothing about marriage. Revisit my challenge.

This thread is about O'Rourke's threat to strip churches of tax-exempt status if they don’t support gay marriage.  If you're not talking about marriage, you're in the wrong thread.

Plaffelvohfen

I'm for stripping tax exemption for churches regardless of whether or not they accept homosexual marriage, this aspect should be completely irrelevant... 

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

I said nothing about marriage. Revisit my challenge.

This thread is about O'Rourke's threat to strip churches of tax-exempt status if they don’t support gay marriage.  If you're not talking about marriage, you're in the wrong thread.

I said in my first post I didn't agree with Beto. If you feel I should defend everything he stands for, then you are in the wrong.

SkepticalOne

@CYDdharta

Besides that, marriage is licensed by the government (not church). Religiously motivated lobbying for (or against) who can and can't get married is out of bounds. So, while not agreeing with Beto on penalizing thought, I do see churches losing tax exempt status for injecting (or attempting to inject) their religious bigotry into government practices as warranted.

MayCaesar

@SkepticalOne

A lot of churches, while being non-profit, do spend the donations on paying wages to the workers and maintaining the building, and they also engage in various financial activities in order to do so. Whether they are businesses or not technically, does not matter that much; I do not see why they should receive a special tax status in any case.

Being/not being an LGBT member is not a choice, but marrying/not marrying, and if marrying, then where and when - is almost certainly a choice. And an LGBT member cannot force their choice on organisations, including churches. No church has an obligation to satisfy every marriage request, and demanding otherwise would be a severe violation of multiple rights: property rights, business rights and individual rights.

I am fine with organisations discriminating against me for whatever reason. Quite a few health insurance companies, for example, refuse to offer me services, because I am not a permanent resident - and I have absolutely nothing against it, it is their right to introduce such rules. I simply interact with a different company, that does not have such policies.
I do not think there is a reasonable possibility that, at some point in the future, there will be no organisations in any of the states willing to register a homosexual marriage. Market always meets demand by providing supply. As long as there are homosexual people who want to marry each other, unless it is specifically banned by the government (which should not be the case), there will be organisations willing to register it.

You are trying to make it look like someone denies people basic rights because of their sexual orientation - but that is not the case. There are no positive rights possible. There is no "right to be serviced by any business I choose".

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

@CYDdharta

Besides that, marriage is licensed by the government (not church). Religiously motivated lobbying for (or against) who can and can't get married is out of bounds. So, while not agreeing with Beto on penalizing thought, I do see churches losing tax exempt status for injecting (or attempting to inject) their religious bigotry into government practices as warranted.

Not allowing people to use private property for their ceremony doesn't deprive those people of the ability to get married.

SkepticalOne

MayCaesar said:

@SkepticalOne

A lot of churches, while being non-profit, do spend the donations on paying wages to the workers and maintaining the building, and they also engage in various financial activities in order to do so. Whether they are businesses or not technically, does not matter that much; I do not see why they should receive a special tax status in any case.

Being/not being an LGBT member is not a choice, but marrying/not marrying, and if marrying, then where and when - is almost certainly a choice. And an LGBT member cannot force their choice on organisations, including churches. No church has an obligation to satisfy every marriage request, and demanding otherwise would be a severe violation of multiple rights: property rights, business rights and individual rights.

I am fine with organisations discriminating against me for whatever reason. Quite a few health insurance companies, for example, refuse to offer me services, because I am not a permanent resident - and I have absolutely nothing against it, it is their right to introduce such rules. I simply interact with a different company, that does not have such policies.
I do not think there is a reasonable possibility that, at some point in the future, there will be no organisations in any of the states willing to register a homosexual marriage. Market always meets demand by providing supply. As long as there are homosexual people who want to marry each other, unless it is specifically banned by the government (which should not be the case), there will be organisations willing to register it.

You are trying to make it look like someone denies people basic rights because of their sexual orientation - but that is not the case. There are no positive rights possible. There is no "right to be serviced by any business I choose".

I don't feel that churches should get tax-exemption by default. I'd be fine with politics from the pulpit so long as churches are not being subsidized by the government and were willing to open their books to scrutiny. That would be fair to non-profits and PACs alike.

Also, I don't think Beto ever meant churches should be forced to marry LGBTQ. In my opinion, that is a particularly uncharitable reading of his poorly chosen words. 

And, yes, I'm am suggesting LGBT peoples have their basic rights denied (or petitioned against) by tax-exempt religious organizations. Check the AFA, the CDAC, or Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family (which has declared itself a church) lobbies against LGBT rights like adoption, parenting, and marriage - not just in church, but in general. This is not something that can rationally be disputed.

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

@CYDdharta

Besides that, marriage is licensed by the government (not church). Religiously motivated lobbying for (or against) who can and can't get married is out of bounds. So, while not agreeing with Beto on penalizing thought, I do see churches losing tax exempt status for injecting (or attempting to inject) their religious bigotry into government practices as warranted.

Not allowing people to use private property for their ceremony doesn't deprive those people of the ability to get married.

I don't see that Beto is demanding this. 

MayCaesar

@SkepticalOne

Religious groups may be lobbying something, but it is the government that actually issues and enforces those rules. Private organisations themselves do not issue or enforce anything that constitutes violation of basic human rights.

For that matter, I do not think marriage laws constitute denial of any rights; there is no "right to marry". Marriage as it is now is a semi-religious and semi-political institution, that only has any legal acknowledgement by the government and by churches - but if two people love each other, they should not need anyone's acknowledgement but their own.
Marriage is one of the most outdated institutions in the modern world, and I hope that 20-30 years later this superstition will no longer manifest in a legal entity.

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

I don't see that Beto is demanding this. 

Then you haven't been paying attention to the topic of the thread.

SkepticalOne

MayCaesar said:

@SkepticalOne

Religious groups may be lobbying something, but it is the government that actually issues and enforces those rules. Private organisations themselves do not issue or enforce anything that constitutes violation of basic human rights.

For that matter, I do not think marriage laws constitute denial of any rights; there is no "right to marry". Marriage as it is now is a semi-religious and semi-political institution, that only has any legal acknowledgement by the government and by churches - but if two people love each other, they should not need anyone's acknowledgement but their own.
Marriage is one of the most outdated institutions in the modern world, and I hope that 20-30 years later this superstition will no longer manifest in a legal entity.

If a religious group is being exempted from taxation, then they are essentially being subsidized by the government. If these groups seek to effect legislation in accordance with their beliefs, then it is government sanctioned activity. This is, at least, a grey area. Obviously, I think it is much more than that.

I won't disagree about marriage being old-fashioned, but if it is allowed for any then it should be allowed for all. And before anyone suggests I'm arguing for pedophilia - "all" applies only to consenting adults.

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

I don't see that Beto is demanding this. 

Then you haven't been paying attention to the topic of the thread.

On the contrary, the topic nor the OP argues what you're suggesting. I get how you might think that, but you'd need to establish it to a level above opinion before I'm going to engage.

MayCaesar

@SkepticalOne

Everything is government-sanctioned activity; we live in a strange system where a group of officials decide what is legal and what is not, and hundreds millions people have to comply. Churches might be exempted from taxation, but even organisations that are not exempted from taxation still have various privileges and restrictions the government imposes on them. Virtually no activity can happen without the government, at least, authorising its legality.

I am against any tax exemptions, as I am against taxes themselves, but given how tight the marriage between the government and the market already is, it becomes hard to separate between types of organisations with regards to what organisations the government really empowers or weakens.

Given how crony the system is and how virtually all private individuals have access to lobbying, you really cannot blame anyone who partakes in it. We are all playing the same game with the same rules. The rules may be unfair, but they are what they are, and it is natural for all entities to maximise the efficiency of their performance by exploiting those rules that help facilitate their desired outcome.
In the end, the final word belongs to the government, and regardless of who does what lobbying, the government is the one responsible for issuing legislations and enforcing them.

SkepticalOne

@MayCaesar
"Everything is government-sanctioned activity;"

I don't agree with this statement. (Rights stands regardless of government endorsement) Plus, the government (through subsidy) lobbying the government for religiously motivated legislation is most certainly not what the framers had in mind. Government should be neutral.