Those are not the choices. The choices are:
A) Yes, they are tax exempt
B) No, they are not tax exempt
But in a separate question, if O’Rourke said that the Manson Family should not have a tax exemption, I presume you would err on the side of “religious liberty?”
There are only two ways to avoid violating the first amendment. Either make all churches tax exempt, or make none of them tax exempt. Or I guess a third option is to treat churches as non-profit charities if they can qualify. But whatever you do has to be universal and not based on the message of the church, or I think you’d be guilty of violating the establishment clause by having the government decide what messages are acceptable in a religion.
I was under the impression that O’Rourke was talking about taking away tax exemption only if churches didn’t change some of their beliefs, such as gay marriage and perhaps abortion.
Basing tax exemption on a religion’s view of gay marriage seems to me to be creating lists of ‘approved’ and ‘non-approved’ faiths. The danger of using government coercive or taxing power to manipulate religious beliefs would be exactly why the establishment clause is there in the first place.
The only thing Beto of qualified for is playing a mute elf in the new LOTR series.
But the NRA should give him an A+ rating for sure. New spokesman? Can’t even imagine how many black rifles that guy has sold over the last month.
That doesn’t really refute what I’m saying, which is that Beto made such a good showing in the 2018 Texas Senator election vs. Ted Cruz because he wasn’t Cruz, and he wasn’t associated with Trump or the GOP either. It wasn’t his personal magnetism, amazing policies, or anything like that- it was a very strong anti-Trumpism reaction by a lot of people. I mean, my district managed to run Pete Sessions out after 8 straight terms (since the district was formed) in favor of a relatively unknown Democrat. Again, not because of Colin Allred’s amazingness, but because people were tired of the GOP/Trump BS.
I think Beto’s believing his own press (or was earlier), and thinks that maybe people voted for him for other reasons than they did.
I think my main disagreement with you is that I don’t think Beto’s a dingbat. Rather, I think he’s too full of himself, and is letting an enormous ego get in the way of savvy politicking. He should be aiming to break the GOP stranglehold on Texas; and if he can do that, maybe even get in a couple good terms as the governor of Texas, he’d be practically a shoo-in for the Dem nomination for president.
But he’s not doing that, and is instead staking out positions during a doomed national run that will also doom his chances in Texas. I think this is a real waste of his promise.
Have you stopped beating your wife? No no no, no fair pointing what a shitty, loaded question it is, just answer yes or no.
O’Rourke is now on record supporting door-to-door confiscation.
And as for the idea that he’s just a lone dingbat:
That’s what I’d call dingbat behavior; he’s more interested in telegraphing his ideological purity at this point, than using whatever bully pulpit time he has left to try and lay a foundation for a future run at something in Texas.
How the heck is that a loaded question? If you think it’s worth a few Scientology-like Churches to keep all the churches tax free, why can’t you just say that? Or if you think Scientology shows that not all “churches” are churches, how does that match up with not beating your wife?
We get it. Pretty much everyone agrees Beto’s answer was no good. But you seem pretty determined to not state your own view on tax free churches.
What is the Manson Family’s position on gay marriage? Beto would need to determine that first.
Regards,
Shodan
He asked about the Manson family. If it’s not already evident to you why I might think that’s a shitty, loaded question, I doubt it’s something I’m capable of illustrating more clearly than ny pointing out that he asked about the Manson family, when the topic was churches and tax exemption.
I thought I laid out my position pretty clearly up-thread, but if it wasn’t clear enough, I’ll try again. I’m generally in favor of churches being exempt from taxes. I see great potential for abuse when elected officials want to pick or choose which churches are or are not based off their level of woke-ness.
I don’t think you understand how a loaded question works. See, the answer to whether you’d let the Manson family get tax free church status is “no” regardless of how Beto feels about it. I mean, I guess it might be a loaded question for people who think murder cults should have equal protection.
Asking whether or not you think the Church of Scientology should get a tax exemption is a loaded question?
To me, that’s like asking you if you like basketball, you answer “Well what is BETO’S opinion on basketball?!?!?!” and I say I’m not asking Beto, I’m asking you, and then you get your nose bent out of joint about “shitty questions.”
It’s like you can’t even speak to your own opinions without making it an attack on someone else.
You seem to have forgotten, or perhaps are deliberately obfuscating, the fact that you asked this question:
That’s the one that I was calling a shitty loaded question.
If “I choose A) every damn day and twice on Sunday” wasn’t making my position clear enough, I’d prefer that the government err on the side of religious liberty when deciding questions about religious tax exemptions. Yes, I imagine that means that a few “Church of Scientology”-like organizations will slip in too, and I prefer that outcome to someone like Beto O’Rourke or Lois Lerner going through the lists of organizations with a fine-toothed (and politically-motivated) comb to decide who isn’t woke enough to make the cut. I think LHoD’s suggestion that “it should take some effort on part of the church to show that their finances are transparent, that leadership is paying appropriate income tax on all compensation they receive (from room and board to use of private jets), and so on” is probably reasonable and not an undue burden, but O’Rourke’s proposal of using the government to decide which churches get to keep their tax exemption based on their doctrine / political positions is horrifying. Any other good-faith questions about my position you’d like me to answer?
So I presumed that you would err on the side of religious liberty, and you do, but not totally, so I asked a loaded question.
Yeah, that makes tons of sense. Man, I feel like I just got nailed. To a cross, perhaps.
Technically, they’re Audited even when they do 
At this point, wouldn’t you re-evaluate whether he ever had much promise? It seems to me that he was the lucky beneficiary of a perfect media storm in 2016, and now that he’s actually having to earn his support he’s turning out to be a complete lightweight.
[/thread]
Brilliant.
It may come as a surprise to you but a “visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm” and “mandatory gun buybacks” are not synonymous.
You’re welcome in advance for clarifying that confusing bit of terminology.
So… It’s not mandatory? If refusal to turn in your gun won’t get you a visit from the cops, then what? You get a stern talking to?