Election 2020 Beto O'Rourke says churches should be taxed if they refuse to support gay marriage

[Battlegrinder]

Then set up appropriate checks and balances like any sane person would.

Go ask that guy who got jailed for making his dog do a nazi salute how well those checks and balances work in actual practice.

Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are attempting a violent takeover (as opposed to winning the vote on election day) of the government?

Are communists or religous people, who you've already decided to crack down on, attempting a violent takeover of the government?

There are laws already in place that would prevent this, and HAVE prevented the destruction of some.

That would prevent what?

I find myself very skeptical. Do you have anything to support this viewpoint?

Well, there was the time the NY govern started pressuring banks to severe business relationships with the NRA, or when san francicso officially labeled them terrorists, or the somewhat related efforts to try and sue gun manufactures because their weapons were used by criminals.

Ok? The Republicans have called liberals terrorists as well and are trying to lawfare them out of existence as well.

I don't recall that happening, but assuming it did, I don't see how that disproves the idea that the idea you're supporting is fundamental unsound.

It's petty, but it's not proof of anything except that you think the Dems are fascist in nature, seeing as that is a textbook fascist move to remove a political opponent.

Well, given the OP is about Beto openly calling for the suppression of people and groups that advocate against his political positions......yeah, sounds about right.

There is never going to be open ended authority to suppress or remove radical political groups because it will be marred by red tape and bureaucracy.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to support creating any such authority.

And don't pretend like the Republicans haven't used the government to try to remove political opponents. They have requested Antifa be put of the terrorist watch list and treated as domestic terrorists. (My personal opinion being that they should be, but still.)

I feel like it's an inherently flawed attempt to equate taking people that you admit are terrorists and calling them terrorists, and calling a large, mainstream special interest group terrorists because they stand in your way.

 

[Lightershoulders]

Go ask that guy who got jailed for making his dog do a nazi salute how well those checks and balances work in actual practice.

Why would I ask a guy in Scotland about checks and balances in America?

Are communists or religous people, who you've already decided to crack down on, attempting a violent takeover of the government?

You are the one who talked about a violent take over here in bold:

So, let's say this starts with communism, because you can't be running talking about overthrowing the government.

Then you decided that those anti-government milita types are also planning that, so they also get the boot.

So asking if there is actual proof that they are doing so is a valid question, because of the part underlined, making it seem like an arbitrary choice.

Secondly, I am only supporting removing Religious leadership from having meeting with our politicians for the purpose of removing the enforcement of religious beliefs onto others.

That is not "Cracking down" in the same sense that Communists should. Communism as a whole shouldn't be tolerated and has a historical record of being the recipe of a failed state.

That would prevent what?

I was clearly talking about the destruction of militia that are seemingly radical in nature, as you were suggesting the next step in your slippery slope.

Laws have prevented their destruction before, and would do so again.

Well, there was the time the NY govern started pressuring banks to severe business relationships with the NRA,

The NRA made the bad move to speak up in the wake of the parkland shooting and got yelled at for it. They then mocked the victims in response, quickly becoming and even easier target for brownie points politically.

Of course some idiot in New York or California (in this case New York) was going to push to look like he was doing something.

or when san francicso officially labeled them terrorists

Nothing offical about it. It has no legal backing and was a bunch of hot air. Even says so in your article.

I don't recall that happening, but assuming it did, I don't see how that disproves the idea that the idea you're supporting is fundamental unsound.

I was saying that that sentence had no point behind it. Literally what point were you trying to go to? Just calling someone a terrorist doesn't mean anything if there is no legal backing.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to support creating any such authority.

Even if it has proper checks and balances preventing your worst worries you outlined?

I feel like it's an inherently flawed attempt to equate taking people that you admit are terrorists and calling them terrorists, and calling a large, mainstream special interest group terrorists because they stand in your way.

Can you rephrase that sentence? I mean no disrespect, I am just having trouble parsing exactly what you mean here. This is a failing on my part.

As for Antifa, they are terrorists, but only in my personal opinion. Officially, they are not, whether we like it or not, and all of the Republicans attempts to remove them have unfortunately failed.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Why would I ask a guy in Scotland about checks and balances in America?

It's not like the english and american justice systems are utterly alien to one another or something, as far as I know they're about equally robust.

You are the one who talked about a violent take over here in bold:

So asking if there is actual proof that they are doing so is a valid question, because of the part underlined, making it seem like an arbitrary choice.

Let's say they're the Waco or Ruby Ridge types, for the sake of example.

Secondly, I am only supporting removing Religious leadership from having meeting with our politicians for the purpose of removing the enforcement of religious beliefs onto others.

That is not "Cracking down" in the same sense that Communists should. Communism as a whole shouldn't be tolerated and has a historical record of being the recipe of a failed state.

I'm actually more concenred about the communism thing at this point, actually.

I was clearly talking about the destruction of militia that are seemingly radical in nature, as you were suggesting the next step in your slippery slope.

Laws have prevented their destruction before, and would do so again.

Laws have also lead to their destruction and in fact to their deaths, and also those laws existed in a framework where the government can't just crack down on any ideology it deems threatening, IE, the one you're arguing for.

The NRA made the bad move to speak up in the wake of the parkland shooting and got yelled at for it. They then mocked the victims in response, quickly becoming and even easier target for brownie points politically.

Of course some idiot in New York or California (in this case New York) was going to push to look like he was doing something.

Are you really downplaying the NY governor trying to drive them out business by threatening banks into cuttings ties with them as "some idiot pushing back to look like he was doing something"?

Nothing offical about it. It has no legal backing and was a bunch of hot air. Even says so in your article.

That's not true. It was official, by the city board of supervisors (which is essientially the city council), and they do in fact have legislative authority. Now, you are correct that in this case their resolution had no legal repercussions, but that doesn't mean it's therefor acceptable.

I was saying that that sentence had no point behind it. Literally what point were you trying to go to? Just calling someone a terrorist doesn't mean anything if there is no legal backing.

My point was "yes, the kind of "destroy the NRA because they're our enemy" mindset I used as an example in my hypothical senario does really exist".

Can you rephrase that sentence? I mean no disrespect, I am just having trouble parsing exactly what you mean here. This is a failing on my part.

It's not really a valid position to go "well, you can't complain about us calling the NRA terrorists, because you called that terrorist group a terrorist group, you're just as bad". You're trying to equate two behaviors that are not equivalent.

As for Antifa, they are terrorists, but only in my personal opinion. Officially, they are not, whether we like it or not, and all of the Republicans attempts to remove them have unfortunately failed.

Their actions have been officially referred to as "domestic terrorist violence", which is about as far the as the US government is willing to go when it comes to US citizens. As far as I know, there is no offical list of domestic terrorist organizations to add them two, or any offical label to stick them with.

 

[Lightershoulders]

It's not like the english and american justice systems are utterly alien to one another or something, as far as I know they're about equally robust.

Scotland's rule of law is not America's rule of law, especially in terms of freedom of speech.

Let's say they're the Waco or Ruby Ridge types, for the sake of example.

I am admittedly not familiar with those. My historical education and study didn't cover those, so I don't feel I can make an honest argument/opinion on this. I'll try with a few moments of google.

This:

Waco siege - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And this:

Ruby Ridge - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Because a curious glance tells me that they only got smacked down after breaking the law and violently resisting. I suppose, logically speaking, you were referring to the ideology/methodology of the groupz behind the events and not the events themselves?

I'm actually more concenred about the communism thing at this point, actually.

Oh, I'm not advocating unlawful violence or anything like that. Just eliminating any sort of power they could ever build up and ultimately make them toothless to ever have a chance at making their agenda come true.

Doing that takes far stronger steps.

Laws have also lead to their destruction and in fact to their deaths,

Perhaps they shouldn't have broken the law? They would have gotten smacked down regardless of what I want for communism or not. Laws still exist outside of this hypothetical.

and also those laws existed in a framework where the government can't just crack down on any ideology it deems threatening, IE, the one you're arguing for.

Are you really downplaying the NY governor trying to drive them out business by threatening banks into cuttings ties with them as "some idiot pushing back to look like he was doing something"?

...The NRA wouldn't go out of business because New York was jacking off to their own influence. If the NRA can afford million dollar donations and lobbying, they can afford the publicity hit that they obviously recovered from.

The NRA practice their freedom of speech, they made comments during the aftermath of the shootings in question, and the public didn't like it.

They don't get freedom from consequences for alienating a segment of the population and making themselves a punching bag for politicians looking for cheap publicity.

That's not true. It was official, by the city board of supervisors (which is essientially the city council), and they do in fact have legislative authority. Now, you are correct that in this case their resolution had no legal repercussions, but that doesn't mean it's therefor acceptable.

Then use a different source?

The city of San Francisco is pulling back from its face-off with the National Rifle Association, weeks after its Board of Supervisors declared the group a domestic terrorist organization. But the N.R.A. said it is not yet prepared to drop a lawsuit it filed against the city in response.

A resolution the board approved on Sept. 3 called for the city’s agencies to limit their relationships with companies that do business with the N.R.A. But Mayor London Breed said in a memo on Sept. 23 that the resolution was not binding, and that it would not change the practices of city agencies. The existence of the memo was previously reported by The San Francisco Examiner.

It is literally non-binding. It does nothing. It doesn't charge the NRA with any crime. It is literally just hot air that invited a lawsuit that San Francisco immediately caved in on.

Treating it as worth anything more than used shitpaper is ridiculous.

What is official about it, besides that it comes from one city that is having its mayor election on November 5th?

It's a fake controversy made to get votes.

My point was "yes, the kind of "destroy the NRA because they're our enemy" mindset I used as an example in my hypothical senario does really exist".

It exists, sure. I'll agree with that, but it's entirely ridiculous in regards to your slippery slope argument.

It's not really a valid position to go "well, you can't complain about us calling the NRA terrorists, because you called that terrorist group a terrorist group, you're just as bad". You're trying to equate two behaviors that are not equivalent.

Not from a legal stand point. Antifa is no more a terrorist organization legally than the NRA is. That is, it is not.

That is totally setting aside my personal feelings on the matter.

As far as I know, there is no offical list of domestic terrorist organizations to add them two, or any offical label to stick them with.

https://www.fbi.gov/cve508/teen-website/what-are-known-violent-extremist-groups

They don't use exact names in the domestic list, but it is easy to guess who they are referring to. They may not officially have a list that the public is aware of, but this is an indicator of there being such a list.

Their actions have been officially referred to as "domestic terrorist violence", which is about as far the as the US government is willing to go when it comes to US citizens.

I am aware of Ted Cruz trying to introduce a resolution calling Antifa a domestic terrorist group, did that actually pass?

A quick look on google doesn't show up when their actions have officially been called domestic terrorist violence, nor by whom.

 

[Cherico]

Scotland's rule of law is not America's rule of law, especially in terms of freedom of speech.



I am admittedly not familiar with those. My historical education and study didn't cover those, so I don't feel I can make an honest argument/opinion on this. I'll try with a few moments of google.

This:

Waco siege - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And this:

Ruby Ridge - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Because a curious glance tells me that they only got smacked down after breaking the law and violently resisting. I suppose, logically speaking, you were referring to the ideology/methodology of the groupz behind the events and not the events themselves?



Oh, I'm not advocating unlawful violence or anything like that. Just eliminating any sort of power they could ever build up and ultimately make them toothless to ever have a chance at making their agenda come true.

Doing that takes far stronger steps.



Perhaps they shouldn't have broken the law? They would have gotten smacked down regardless of what I want for communism or not. Laws still exist outside of this hypothetical.







...The NRA wouldn't go out of business because New York was jacking off to their own influence. If the NRA can afford million dollar donations and lobbying, they can afford the publicity hit that they obviously recovered from.

The NRA practice their freedom of speech, they made comments during the aftermath of the shootings in question, and the public didn't like it.

They don't get freedom from consequences for alienating a segment of the population and making themselves a punching bag for politicians looking for cheap publicity.



Then use a different source?



It is literally non-binding. It does nothing. It doesn't charge the NRA with any crime. It is literally just hot air that invited a lawsuit that San Francisco immediately caved in on.

Treating it as worth anything more than used shitpaper is ridiculous.

What is official about it, besides that it comes from one city that is having its mayor election on November 5th?

It's a fake controversy made to get votes.



It exists, sure. I'll agree with that, but it's entirely ridiculous in regards to your slippery slope argument.



Not from a legal stand point. Antifa is no more a terrorist organization legally than the NRA is. That is, it is not.

That is totally setting aside my personal feelings on the matter.

https://www.fbi.gov/cve508/teen-website/what-are-known-violent-extremist-groups

They don't use exact names in the domestic list, but it is easy to guess who they are referring to. They may not officially have a list that the public is aware of, but this is an indicator of there being such a list.



I am aware of Ted Cruz trying to introduce a resolution calling Antifa a domestic terrorist group, did that actually pass?

A quick look on google doesn't show up when their actions have officially been called domestic terrorist violence, nor by whom.

they fire bombed an Ice facilty.

if you were looking you didn't look very hard.

 

[Cherico]

also they have been giving out violent threats to stop their political enemies.

So yes they are a strait out terrorist organization.

 

[Tyzuris]

Beto O'Rourke seems to fail to comprehend that this is the State involving itself in religion and the Church which will then fairly cut both ways if the Church as a response tries to acquire state power and dissolve the separation of State and Church.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Beto’s Coming Door to Door for Your Guns | National Review

Beto’s worst moment of the night was his inability to answer the question of how he’s going to confiscate guns.

www.nationalreview.com

Beto ADMITS He Will Send Cops To Your DOOR To Confiscate Your Property(Guns)

Lol, someone needs to keep asking Beto questions. The more the guy answers bluntly. The more people realize what it is the leftist assholes want.

 

[StormEagle]

Beto’s Coming Door to Door for Your Guns | National Review

Beto’s worst moment of the night was his inability to answer the question of how he’s going to confiscate guns.

www.nationalreview.com

Beto ADMITS He Will Send Cops To Your DOOR To Confiscate Your Property(Guns)

Lol, someone needs to keep asking Beto questions. The more the guy answers bluntly. The more people realize what it is the leftist assholes want.

I hope the likes of Beto and Omar keep talking and keep grabbing the spotlight.

They’re the best things that could’ve happened to the conservative movement. Just two walking, talking masks off moments for the liberals and gaffe machines like Biden as well.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Scotland's rule of law is not America's rule of law, especially in terms of freedom of speech.

Yes, but even they thought that case was absurd, while the check and balances failed. The same ones you're citing as being why your plan here won't be abused.

Because a curious glance tells me that they only got smacked down after breaking the law and violently resisting. I suppose, logically speaking, you were referring to the ideology/methodology of the groupz behind the events and not the events themselves?

You should take more than a glance, because that's not what happened, especially at Ruby Ridge.

Oh, I'm not advocating unlawful violence or anything like that. Just eliminating any sort of power they could ever build up and ultimately make them toothless to ever have a chance at making their agenda come true.

Doing that takes far stronger steps.

I know your not advocating for unlawful violence, your advocating for lawful violence which is ultimately worse, not better.

Perhaps they shouldn't have broken the law? They would have gotten smacked down regardless of what I want for communism or not. Laws still exist outside of this hypothetical.

Randy Weaver's family won a lawsuit against the government precisely because members of his family were murdered by the government while having broken no law.

...The NRA wouldn't go out of business because New York was jacking off to their own influence. If the NRA can afford million dollar donations and lobbying, they can afford the publicity hit that they obviously recovered from.

The NRA practice their freedom of speech, they made comments during the aftermath of the shootings in question, and the public didn't like it.

They don't get freedom from consequences for alienating a segment of the population and making themselves a punching bag for politicians looking for cheap publicity.

Yes they do. The first amendment exists explicitly to grant people freedom from consequences for saying things the government doesn't like. Cuomo crossed a line when he went from criticizing a political opponents to attempting force that opponent out of business.

It is literally non-binding. It does nothing. It doesn't charge the NRA with any crime. It is literally just hot air that invited a lawsuit that San Francisco immediately caved in on.

Treating it as worth anything more than used shitpaper is ridiculous.

What is official about it, besides that it comes from one city that is having its mayor election on November 5th?

It's a fake controversy made to get votes.

I'm aware it's non-binding, but I don't see why that matters. If the city council of some southern town had instead passed an equally toothless resolution declaring that, say, black people are in fact subhuman, would you write that off as just hot air made to get votes?

A quick look on google doesn't show up when their actions have officially been called domestic terrorist violence, nor by whom.

Can't post a link on mobile for some reason, but here:

US security agencies label Antifa 'domestic terrorists'

Department of Homeland Security has reportedly been warning about growing threat of violence between left-wing anarchists and right-wing nationalists since early 2016

www.google.com

 

[Tyzuris]

I wouldn't mind the first amendment being replaced with something similar that doesn't allow them to hide a business pretending to be a church.

TV churches are the absolute worst examples of this.

The problem here is the potential for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's only a relatively few wealthy churches in US as opposed to the tens to hundreds of thousands that barely make their ends meet with donations. So doing something like messing with church taxes could potentially be punishing many churches for the few being wealthy and public about it.

And if you start taxing churches, you lose your right to complain if the churches start amassing a lot more political power and pushing for pro-life and anti-lgbt policies harder than they are right now.

Even my social democratic country relieves churches and other religious congregations from taxation.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I hope the likes of Beto and Omar keep talking and keep grabbing the spotlight.

They’re the best things that could’ve happened to the conservative movement. Just two walking, talking masks off moments for the liberals and gaffe machines like Biden as well.

I recall a lot of people saying that in 2016 about Trump, it didn't really work out the way they hoped.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

yes, BUT.

There's video of Chuck Schumer calling for "border barriers" the year before Trump started campaigning.

Trump, with similar/same views as he has today was a registered Dem a decade ago.

 

[Battlegrinder]

yes, BUT.

There's video of Chuck Schumer calling for "border barriers" the year before Trump started campaigning.

Trump, with similar/same views as he has today was a registered Dem a decade ago.

There's videos of Feinstein saying she supports outright gun confiscation from 20 years ago too, I don't think that changed much.

 

[FriedCFour]

Because a curious glance tells me that they only got smacked down after breaking the law and violently resisting.

Waco and Ruby Ridge are among the biggest law enforcement blunders in American history. Ruby Ridge saw Randy Weaver spend 18 months in jail and be compensated for over 3 million dollars worth of damage because the whole thing kicked off with a 3/8ths of an inch shorter than the legal minimum sawed off shotgun, and ended in a shit show of a siege that ended in his son, wife, dog, and a us marshall all dead. Over 3/8ths of an inch and multiple falsehoods in reports on him.

Waco, on the other hand, was a fucking clown show of an operation that had agents pretend to be college students who were like 40 set up directly across from the building carrying tons of video and recording equipment into the house, so they knew immediately the feds were watching, had a tv crew ask a member of the Branch Davidian church where their headquarters was so they could film the siege before the siege occured meaning they knew exactly what day and time and had hours to prepare, and David Kouresh rode his motorcycle into town every single day on the same route at the same time to the church, so seriously, why the hell couldn't they just pick him up in the first place?

These are both major examples of why heavy crackdowns on scary political movements who haven't actually done a whole ton of violent action are awful ideas and if we did that to communists I guaranteed we'd end up with the same shitshows and sympathies for the movements occurring.

 

[Captain X]

The only way religion effects me is when religious people legislate aspects of their religious beliefs. For example, blue laws forbidding businesses to be open on the Christian holy day.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Going back to the thread topic

Why can’t gay-lesbian couples just settle for getting some forms and being done with it?

And in the first place, just how much of the world population consists of ACTUAL Homosexuals to make this a common issue?

 

[LTR]

This is first principles enough that it should be split and moved to the Athenaeum...

Thread pruned to new topic in the Athenaeum... the Atheneaum.... the Atheneuaum... Anathema...the... here...

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/religion-morality-and-non-theism.1075/

 

[Captain X]

Going back to the thread topic

Why can’t gay-lesbian couples just settle for getting some forms and being done with it?

And in the first place, just how much of the world population consists of ACTUAL Homosexuals to make this a common issue?

Because they love each other and want to declare it before god and the government, like everyone else. Also, there are things that go along with marriage automatically that might not be covered by whatever alternative(s) you might have in mind, or they may simply not be respected the way marriage generally has to be.

And this shouldn't matter no matter how small of a minority they are. Are you really advocating for tyranny of the majority?

In any case, where I disagree is with this threat of government meddling in houses of worship. I believe in freedom of association, and if a church doesn't want to perform a marriage, they shouldn't have to or feel like they're backed into a corner over it by the government.

 

[Isem]

Because they love each other and want to declare it before god and the government, like everyone else. Also, there are things that go along with marriage automatically that might not be covered by whatever alternative(s) you might have in mind, or they may simply not be respected the way marriage generally has to be.

Not much you can do about that one however. At the end of the day you can't force a church to change it's religious dogma unless it feels like doing so. In their position I'd just settle for making civil marriage have the same legal and tax status as religious marriage and be done with it because that's about all the government has the ability to do.

It's not the government's job to butt heads with various churches about religious matters beyond obvious extremes like human sacrifice or the like.