In the last Democrat candidate show, Beto Pancho O’Rourke of El Paso said that churches, ministries, and religious schools that do not support same-sex, homosexual, marriage should face punishment from government including the loss of tax-exempt nonprofit status.
Even the liberals at the Dallas Morning News editorial board recognized the un-American nastiness of O’Rourke’s position which we can assert is agreed with by much of the radical Left based upon the instant applause at the debate to his comment.
Those editors said “Beto is embracing the politics of sharp divisions,” and pointed out that “Supreme Court Justice John Marshall had it right: The power to tax is the power to destroy,”” recognizing what is the true endgame of the argument to pull tax-exemption from religious organizations.
Beto Pancho & his bullhorn
The most preposterous thing Beto Pancho said was this: “Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, but it should not be used to discriminate.”
It is ludicrous statement in every sense because freedom actually means the ability to choose one belief or practice over another which is inherently discriminatory toward that not chosen.
And on the note or society and religion, my mother wrote in her weekly column titled “Exploring “The Ugly Renaissance,” these pithy two sentences: “Isn’t it interesting how easily we judge the errors of the ancients, the human degradation of the Middle Ages, the brutality of the Holocaust, yet overlook the corruption of our present? There are no new sins, but there are plenty of new labels created in an attempt to hide our wrong doings.”
Little is new in attacks upon religion and religious people through politics and little is new with sin among all people, it just gets rebranded or repackaged to fit the culture of the moment.
It is this constancy of human behavior, and knowledge of such, that justifies constancy of citizen vigilance against tyranny as well as justifies vigorous classical study, especially of Western Civilization and philosophy, which is generally treated as passé or with hostility by the Left in academia.
O’Rourke’s hostility toward freedom of conscience is nothing new
Even the liberals at the Dallas Morning News editorial board recognized the un-American nastiness of O’Rourke’s position which we can assert is agreed with by much of the radical Left based upon the instant applause at the debate to his comment.
Those editors said “Beto is embracing the politics of sharp divisions,” and pointed out that “Supreme Court Justice John Marshall had it right: The power to tax is the power to destroy,”” recognizing what is the true endgame of the argument to pull tax-exemption from religious organizations.
Beto Pancho & his bullhorn
The most preposterous thing Beto Pancho said was this: “Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, but it should not be used to discriminate.”
It is ludicrous statement in every sense because freedom actually means the ability to choose one belief or practice over another which is inherently discriminatory toward that not chosen.
And on the note or society and religion, my mother wrote in her weekly column titled “Exploring “The Ugly Renaissance,” these pithy two sentences: “Isn’t it interesting how easily we judge the errors of the ancients, the human degradation of the Middle Ages, the brutality of the Holocaust, yet overlook the corruption of our present? There are no new sins, but there are plenty of new labels created in an attempt to hide our wrong doings.”
Little is new in attacks upon religion and religious people through politics and little is new with sin among all people, it just gets rebranded or repackaged to fit the culture of the moment.
It is this constancy of human behavior, and knowledge of such, that justifies constancy of citizen vigilance against tyranny as well as justifies vigorous classical study, especially of Western Civilization and philosophy, which is generally treated as passé or with hostility by the Left in academia.