# Is O'Rourke deliberately sabotaging the Dems? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 11, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637 "2019-10-11T16:33:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/121 "2019-10-14T15:49:53Z")
> [@Annoyed](#): > > Buttigeg said some weak shit but only because he’s been trying to win christian votes by being the good gay Christian. Or whatever weird angle he’s been trying to run. I think he’s running on “competence” and “sanity” “integrity” and “peace.” > [@](#): > > Pete is laying out a vision, values, and policies to ensure that America’s future is better than its past. We need to secure a future in which every American has the freedom to live a life of their choosing; where our republic grows more and not less democratic; where racial justice is a reality and not a dream; where we’ve put an end to endless war; where we’ve summoned the national will to meet the challenge of climate change; where everyone has the health care they need; and where everyone has the chance to find purpose and belonging in our economy and our country. ---
**Author:** ![Annoyed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f04885/32.png) [@Annoyed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annoyed)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/122 "2019-10-14T16:49:00Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I think he’s running on “competence” and “sanity” “integrity” and “peace.” Sounds like a fuckin’ hippie ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/123 "2019-10-14T16:50:54Z")
> [@Annoyed](#): > > Sounds like a fuckin’ hippie 3 out of 4 of those words have never been used to describe a hippy. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/124 "2019-10-14T17:13:36Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I think he’s running on “competence” and “sanity” “integrity” and “peace.” Currently he’s running around 6%. So apparently competence and sanity and integrity and peace is more appealing than taxing churches that don’t fall in line. Not as appealing as whatever Warren and Biden are running on, but it’s early days yet. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/125 "2019-10-14T17:18:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Currently he’s running around 6%. So apparently competence and sanity and integrity and peace is more appealing than taxing churches that don’t fall in line. Not as appealing as whatever Warren and Biden are running on, but it’s early days yet. > > Regards, > Shodan Not so fast. You’re forgetting that compared to Individual 1, _ **all** _ the Democratic candidates have a leg up on competence, sanity and integrity. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/126 "2019-10-14T17:20:00Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In any case, the point of the free exercise and establishment clauses is to establish a sort of neutrality towards religion. Neither favored, nor inhibited. Making the government blind to religious status at all, is consistent with the idea against any form of special treatment. Allowing religious institutions to be exempt from taxes by default favors them in a way that other institutions are not so favored. As you note, it is a matter of degree. Because of this, my assertion is that the constitution would not prohibit an elimination of tax exempt status for all entities. Singling out churches would be a non-starter. But if the entirety of the non profit tax scheme were to be eliminated, this is an available, yet highly remote possibility and would not be in conflict with the constitution. Your first half here is how I take it and I think my idea that a functional test for tax free status that ignored religion entirely is also quite clearly allowed by the Constitution. Nothing that DirkHardly has brought up even comes close to refuting that. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/127 "2019-10-14T17:31:21Z")
What I’d like to know, DirkHardly, is your reasoning for why the government is allowed to tax newspapers. Is that not infringing on the freedom of the press? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/128 "2019-10-14T17:43:12Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Your first half here is how I take it and I think my idea that a functional test for tax free status that ignored religion entirely is also quite clearly allowed by the Constitution. Nothing that DirkHardly has brought up even comes close to refuting that. That’s the approach I favor. Doesn’t matter whether your activities involve religion or not: a government that makes “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” ought to be almost blind to the existence of religion. Activities are neither promoted nor prohibited because of their religious nature. The government doesn’t print or declare anything of a religious nature. If we want churches to have tax-exempt status, then we should allow similar tax-exempt status for other groups that meet on the weekends and fulfill social/moral/aesthetic needs of their patrons. That’s totally fine if we do that. I gain great social/moral/aesthetic fulfillment from some of the roleplaying events I go to, and if they’re tax-exempt, that’s great, and I’m not being sarcastic here, even if I am being a hopeless nerd. But there’s nothing in the constitution that requires religion to gain tax-exempt status that’s unavailable to other groups. And that tax-exempt status would be best dispensed with. Not, of course, in the way Beto suggests. I don’t think anyone here is defending his specific proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/129 "2019-10-14T17:52:50Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > What I’d like to know, DirkHardly, is your reasoning for why the government is allowed to tax newspapers. Is that not infringing on the freedom of the press? More to the point, could the government decide to tax only those newspapers that opposed the government, while allowing government-friendly newspapers to go tax free? This is an old tactic used to shut down expression. “Hey, we have a free press! Oh, there’s a 2000% tax on newsprint, though. You can apply for a special exemption if you meet the following criteria…” Are you suggesting that using tax law as a weapon against churches who don’t adhere to government-approved beliefs would pass constitutional muster? Because it seems to me to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/130 "2019-10-14T17:55:42Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > More to the point, could the government decide to tax only those newspapers that opposed the government, while allowing government-friendly newspapers to go tax free? > > This is an old tactic used to shut down expression. “Hey, we have a free press! Oh, there’s a 2000% tax on newsprint, though. You can apply for a special exemption if you meet the following criteria…” > > Are you suggesting that using tax law as a weapon against churches who don’t adhere to government-approved beliefs would pass constitutional muster? Because it seems to me to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. There is some confusion here. There are three proposals being discussed: 1. Remove tax-exempt status from churches that deny same-sex marriage. Not clear what that would look like, but nobody here seems particularly interested in defending it. 2. Remove tax-exempt status for churches (unless they qualify under charitable or other grounds). 3. Removing tax-exempt status for all organizations, including charities. I think CarnalK is talking about the second proposal, not Beto’s. ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/131 "2019-10-14T18:30:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Sure. My bold below: > Now, if you want to find daylight in between “definitively” and “almost certainly” I suppose you could do that. But here’s the thing, I’m not understanding why you seem to be so combative. People disagree, and you start right in questioning their knowledge, expertise, capacity for legal analysis, aspersions about one’s profession, etc. It’s pretty off putting. Like this: > > Like, why do you do that? > You cited a single case, Walz, and then threw in references to free exercise and establishment. Do you consider saying those phrases sufficient to support anything you’re saying? The holding in Walz wasn’t on point so you’re relying on dicta which is fairly thin. Simply mentioning free exercise and establishment goes absolutely no where because as you note, these general principles must be taken into context with the rest of relevant case law. You make it seem as if you’ve presented a cache of strong evidence, but really, one case and not even in the holding. That’s weak tea. > Again, you’re conceding my point. The “Constitution saying nothing directly on the issue either way” is functionally equivalent (on the parts that are relevant) to saying “there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits taxing religious institutions”. It’s silent on the matter. In other words, there is nothing there that prohibits it. Perhaps it can be interpreted that way, but there is nothing currently that would require that conclusion. > You think I’m making an evaluation as to the likelihood? I’m not. This is a thought exercise mainly. But to the extent we are talking about likelihood, this is what I said: > > Virtually nil. How do you get from virtually nil to a change in the status quo as likely or more than likely? > > In any case, the point of the free exercise and establishment clauses is to establish a sort of neutrality towards religion. Neither favored, nor inhibited. Making the government blind to religious status at all, is consistent with the idea against any form of special treatment. Allowing religious institutions to be exempt from taxes by default favors them in a way that other institutions are not so favored. As you note, it is a matter of degree. Because of this, my assertion is that the constitution would not prohibit an elimination of tax exempt status for all entities. Singling out churches would be a non-starter. But if the entirety of the non profit tax scheme were to be eliminated, this is an available, yet highly remote possibility and would not be in conflict with the constitution. The entire point of using words like “definitively” versus “almost certainly” is that they have different meanings so whatever “daylight” you are referring to is inherent in their respective definitions. And why exactly is pointing out someone’s arguments are wrong or asking for legal cites in a thread discussing legal issues being combative? In what world is pointing out someone’s lack of qualifications or expertise on a particular topic being combative when the discussion concerns that very topic? Personally I think the numerous times I’ve been accused of being wrong or not knowing what I’m talking about while offering no argument as to why is being far more combative. As to why I said you seem to be unable to fully grasp these issues? It’s because you repeatedly keep posting poor arguments that range from flat-out wrong (see below, and elsewhere) to questionable at best. And as for my post at LHoD’s career it seems you missed the rather obvious point of that whole post. Teaching is a highly regulated and specialized profession. Do you or LHoD believe that someone could do that job without the specialized education and training at a level even close to that of the person who does that have training and education? If not, then why would it not be analogous to lawyers and legal scholars, the latter of which are even also members of academia Sigh. But here we go again. I am not relying solely on _Walz_ for the doctrine of government entanglement with religion. That’s a recurring theme in nearly every case involving the Free Exercise/ Establishment Clauses. I quoted from _Walz_ because it was particularly on point concerning the FE/E and taxes. And by the way you seem to keep ignoring the significance of the Court’s language in that case. Is it because it’s dicta? Dicta is adopted into future cases as reasoning all the time. And the dicta in this case is not only especially relevant but could easily be seen as more persusasive than normal because Free Exercise and the Establishment Clause are often seen as two sides of the same coin, in tension, and what affects one can often affect the other. Which is precisely why all that dicta about Free Exercise appears in a case about the Establishment Clause in the first place. Don’t you think that maybe has some significance? And once again you don’t seem to get it and are using language as if this is a preemption issue. So again, whether the courts have ruled on an issue has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Congress can act in a legislative manner. Congress can even pass a law that SCOTUS has previously ruled unconstitutional and there’s nothing the Court can do to prevent this, they can only strike it down again. And this could repeat ad nauseum. So your statement that Congress could act where the law is unsettled or the Constitution is silent is meaningless because Congress can act in every circumstance, without prior restriction, and that has absolutely nothing to do, per se, with whether the legislative act will eventually be struck down. Your whole line of thinking on this point is completely off-base. You have made no point and of course I have conceded no point but instead pretty much contradicted everything you said. The part where I characterized your view of the probability of a tax on churches being upheld was an editing error on my part that somehow made sense but didn’t say what I intended. What I meant to say is you seem to believe that the chances of the status quo changing range from some significant chance to maybe approaching even. And I wasn’t referring to the chance that it would ever actually happen in a general sense but what would happen if it ever came before the Court. I think we are in agreement that it never will actually happen because it will just never come before the Court. Where we seem to differ is I think even if it did somehow pass a legislature and was up for Constitutional review it would be struck down and you believe that’s not necessarily or even more likely to be true, correct? All I can say is what I’ve been saying all along, that the evidence we have so far from other cases and relevant Constitutional principles and doctrines weighs pretty strongly against it surviving. Finally, once again we get to a point where you seem to misunderstand or are unaware of a basic premise of Constitutional Law. Religion is absolutely entitled to special treatment under the law precisely because it is an expressly granted, fundamental right that appears in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights right there along with Speech, Press, etc. See how that one legal fact kinda messes with your whole point? If only you had known it ahead of time… ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/132 "2019-10-14T18:46:04Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Your first half here is how I take it and I think my idea that a functional test for tax free status that ignored religion entirely is also quite clearly allowed by the Constitution. Nothing that DirkHardly has brought up even comes close to refuting that. Read the last paragraph of my last reply to Bone and square that with your take on things. And, once again, you and Bone continue to ignore the extremely relevant language from the Court in _Walz_ while producing exactly zero legal cites in support of your position. So why exactly do you think I’m wrong and you’re right again? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/133 "2019-10-14T19:01:24Z")
That wasn’t from the holding in Walz, right? And the quoted parts merely display an aversion to government getting “entangled” with religion. Not judging the merits of a religion and just looking at their monetary activites does not require much entanglement. And you have not presented any actual decisions to justify your position, right? This is your gut and it seems mostly based on the status quo not law. The plain language of the Constitution doesn’t protect churches from taxes anymore than it protects newspapers. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/134 "2019-10-14T19:02:29Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > Sigh. But here we go again. I am not relying solely on _Walz_ for the doctrine of government entanglement with religion. That’s a recurring theme in nearly every case involving the Free Exercise/ Establishment Clauses. I quoted from _Walz_ because it was particularly on point concerning the FE/E and taxes. And by the way you seem to keep ignoring the significance of the Court’s language in that case. Is it because it’s dicta? Dicta is adopted into future cases as reasoning all the time. And the dicta in this case is not only especially relevant but could easily be seen as more persusasive than normal because Free Exercise and the Establishment Clause are often seen as two sides of the same coin, in tension, and what affects one can often affect the other. Which is precisely why all that dicta about Free Exercise appears in a case about the Establishment Clause in the first place. Don’t you think that maybe has some significance? Walz says a lot of things in dicta. Like this: > [@](#): > > The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is **to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited.** The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. **Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts, there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality** which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference. And this: > [@](#): > > Each value judgment under the Religion Clauses must therefore turn on whether particular acts in question are intended to establish or interfere with religious beliefs and practices or have the effect of doing so. Adherence to the policy of neutrality that derives from an accommodation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses has prevented the kind of involvement that would tip the balance toward government control of churches or governmental restraint on religious practice. This too: > [@](#): > > The hazards of placing too much weight on a few words or phrases of the Court is abundantly illustrated within the pages of the Court’s opinion in Everson. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, writing for the Court s majority, said the First Amendment “means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can . . . pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” I’m not arguing preemption. My position is the null set - there’s nothing that prevents a tax on religious institutions by abolishing not for profit entities (federal at least, ignoring that every state also exempts religious institutions separately). Mine is the negative position - whereas you are positively asserting that something exists. You haven’t offered evidence sufficient to prove that claim. And you can’t, because as you’ve acknowledged, there is no case on point. That’s kind of QED for me. To be clear, I don’t think the issue will ever come before the court. If it did come before the court, I would expect that any taxation on religious institutions would be struck down. But this isn’t an exercise in probabilities. I’m saying, again, that within our constitutional framework, it is conceivable to tax religious institutions without running afoul of the constitution. > [@DirkHardly](#): > > Finally, once again we get to a point where you seem to misunderstand or are unaware of a basic premise of Constitutional Law. Religion is absolutely entitled to special treatment under the law precisely because it is an expressly granted, fundamental right that appears in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights right there along with Speech, Press, etc. See how that one legal fact kinda messes with your whole point? If only you had known it ahead of time… I guess this is your thing then, presuming that people you discuss things with are ignorant or something unflattering. I mean, here you misstate the first amendment - it doesn’t grant rights, nor does it do so _expressly_ as you indicated. Personally I wouldn’t be smarmy about items while at the same time making such imprecise declarations. I guess good luck with that, I’ve said what I wanted to say. ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/135 "2019-10-14T19:39:56Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > What I’d like to know, DirkHardly, is your reasoning for why the government is allowed to tax newspapers. Is that not infringing on the freedom of the press? What kind of tax are you referring to? The one like in _Grosjean_ 297 US 233 where a tax on newspapers was struck down for just that reason? How about \* Minneapolis Star\* 460 US 575 where a use tax on paper and ink was also struck down? Look at that, turns out a tax can be unconstitutional when it infringes on a First Amendment right after all. Or are you talking about a more general tax such as a property tax or income tax? If so, fair enough. I’ll get to that in a minute. But you and others seem to not understand how precedent or exceptions work in the legal context. Precedent only applies if the relevant facts and legal issues are identical. So a precedent that imposing sales tax on commercial activities by a church (as shorthand for any religious institution of a similar nature) is Constitutional does not mean that a property tax on churches must also therefore Constitutional. Similarly, the fact that an exception exists doesn’t mean that the general rule of law is not presumed to apply or that any other proposed exception is not presumed invalid as a rebuttable presumption. As to imposing a property tax or income tax on a church vs a member of the Press, while the Freedom of the Press and the Free Exercise/Clause have numerous things in common they also have important differences. A media outlet is most often engaged in commercial activity, albeit an important and Constitutionally protected one. Its real property (printing facilities, studio, etc.) is used in furtherance of that commercial activity and its income funds future commercial activity. A church uses its real property (church, synagogue, temple, mosque) as an often integral part of their religious expression. The very nature of the building can make it indispensable to religious expressions such as worship and fellowship. Income collected by the church is not profit from commercial activity but is used to provide and maintain this vital part of their religious expression. Isn’t it possible that based on these differences the Court could justify treating general taxes on newspapers differently from those on churches? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/136 "2019-10-14T19:40:10Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 3 out of 4 of those words have never been used to describe a hippy. Come on now. He can’t very well say what he _really_ thinks of him. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/137 "2019-10-14T20:06:39Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > So are these candidates actually this ignorant or even stupid or do they know better and are shamelessly appealing to a voter base that doesn’t? Oh, you mean like saying, “We’re going to build a big beautiful wall and Mexico’s going to pay for it”? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/138 "2019-10-14T20:09:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I guess this is your thing then, presuming that people you discuss things with are ignorant or something unflattering. I mean, here you misstate the first amendment - it doesn’t grant rights, nor does it do so _expressly_ as you indicated. Personally I wouldn’t be smarmy about items while at the same time making such imprecise declarations. I guess good luck with that, I’ve said what I wanted to say. It’s in keeping with his calling Bernie Sanders’s proposed constitutional amendment “possibly unconstitutional” and, when called on that silliness, refusing to back down, instead hiding behind some sort of amorphous implication of his own authoritative opinions without ever stepping forward and explaining what his claimed authority is. I’m not impressed. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/139 "2019-10-14T20:28:06Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > As to imposing a property tax or income tax on a church vs a member of the Press, while the Freedom of the Press and the Free Exercise/Clause have numerous things in common they also have important differences. A media outlet is most often engaged in commercial activity, albeit an important and Constitutionally protected one. Its real property (printing facilities, studio, etc.) is used in furtherance of that commercial activity and its income funds future commercial activity. Then why shouldn’t commercial activity be the test for tax free status? For any organization. > [@](#): > > A church uses its real property (church, synagogue, temple, mosque) as an often integral part of their religious expression. The very nature of the building can make it indispensable to religious expressions such as worship and fellowship. Income collected by the church is not profit from commercial activity but is used to provide and maintain this vital part of their religious expression. Isn’t it possible that based on these differences the Court could justify treating general taxes on newspapers differently from those on churches? Not really persuasive. Unless you think printing presses and work stations for journalists aren’t integral to the function of a newspaper. And it’s not like a lot of people are getting rich off newspapers these days. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/140 "2019-10-14T20:34:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Probably not, but I have rather low confidence in the government’s ability to distinguish between good and bad churches without letting partisan motives slip in. I certainly wouldn’t trust someone like O’Rourke to make that distinction. Define hate speech and sanction churches that use it. It’s not how I would do things, but we also define political speech, and sanction churches (in theory) that partake in that. The US wouldn’t let Utah in until the Mormons gave up some of their religious practices, so, for better or worse, the govt has precedent of enforcing what they consider to be acceptable ways of practicing a religion. If a religion involves dehumanizing and encouraging violence against others, I would consider that reasonable grounds for the govt to not encourage that talk with a tax break. > [@CarnalK](#): > > What I’d like to know, DirkHardly, is your reasoning for why the government is allowed to tax newspapers. Is that not infringing on the freedom of the press? The newspaper is generally a for profit business. If you had a not-for profit printed news agency, I’d think that you would find a way to qualify for tax exemptions. As far as broadcast goes, most television and radio broadcasts are done by for profit corporations, but there are some non-profits in both of those as well. So, can we tax for profit churches? Do the ultra rich prosperity gospel televangelists have to pay taxes on their income, or do they write off the mansions and jets as necessary religious expenses? > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s the approach I favor. Doesn’t matter whether your activities involve religion or not: a government that makes “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” ought to be almost blind to the existence of religion. Activities are neither promoted nor prohibited because of their religious nature. The government doesn’t print or declare anything of a religious nature. > > If we want churches to have tax-exempt status, then we should allow similar tax-exempt status for other groups that meet on the weekends and fulfill social/moral/aesthetic needs of their patrons. That’s totally fine if we do that. I gain great social/moral/aesthetic fulfillment from some of the roleplaying events I go to, and if they’re tax-exempt, that’s great, and I’m not being sarcastic here, even if I am being a hopeless nerd. I’d have no problem with that route. Allow easy tax free status for any group of people that are not gathering for the purpose of generating income. Give your DM the tax status of clergy, his house as a parish, and the snacks and drinks written off as sacraments. I know people with thousands of dollars in books, maps, and figurines who would be happy to write them off as a religious expense. Otherwise, my annoyance of the tax free status of churches is reinforced everyday on my way home as I pass a church that has a nice playground on it, completely empty of children and with posted no trespassing signs on the fence around it. I gladly pay taxes for a park down the street for all the kids to play at, but I also have to pay taxes to subsidize a playground reserved for members. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637.md?page=8)