There was a time when normal, rational people just laughed off the idea that they’re coming for your guns. And the idea that Democrats would use the government to discriminate against particular religions based on their specific beliefs sounded insane.
Not any more, and we have one man to thank for that.
In his short and otherwise pointless campaign for the presidency, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke has accomplished something unique. He has vindicated every panicked right-wing fundraising email that has ever gone out since the advent of online fundraising. He has promised to take away your guns, and he’ll suck dry the coffers of your church, synagogue, or mosque if your beliefs don’t meet his standards.
O’Rourke made both promises in the open on national television. Tellingly, the other Democrats running for president don’t seem eager to contradict him.
The loser of the 2018 U.S. Senate race in Texas made his first over-the-top threat in the September Democratic primary debate when, to great cheers from the left-wing audience, he promised to confiscate AR-15 rifles from their owners. “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15,” he said.
Considering that the AR is the nation’s most popular model of sporting rifle, his proposal would literally affect millions of people, making them criminals if they are unwilling to part with their Second Amendment rights. So yes, they are coming for your guns.
But O’Rourke wasn’t done there. With little hope of improving his near-zero poll numbers absent some serious pandering to the far Left, O’Rourke stepped up his game during last week’s forum on gay rights issues. He said that he would like to remove tax-exempt status from religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage.
“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us,” he explained. “And so, as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”
The tradition of churches’ exemption from federal taxes goes all the way back to the imposition of the nation’s first corporate income tax in 1894. It was most recently upheld by a very left-wing Supreme Court in the 1970s. And it is fitting for practical, social, and constitutional reasons. Churches, like other charities, provide many public goods, educating, feeding, and providing healthcare for believers and nonbelievers alike. They also create community among citizens. In America, churches have long been the fundamental community institution, particularly among the working class and the middle class.
But more importantly, from a constitutional perspective, the First Amendment prohibits government interference in religion. One reason churches are traditionally tax-exempt in the United States is that otherwise, tyrants would have cover to put pressure on out-of-favor churches through selective taxation, which is actually just what O’Rourke is proposing. The founders especially wanted to avoid an established church: either an official state-sanctioned hierarchy or an enforced doctrinal orthodoxy. O’Rourke wants to impose the latter using the tax code, discriminating against specific religions and religious sects based on their specific beliefs.
O’Rourke’s proposal would, of course, affect all of the largest Christian denominations. Punishing the Catholic Church would come easy to him, as he could just call up the Catechism. But what about all the thousands of independent churches? Would President Beto O’Rourke dispatch IRS agents to listen in on homilies? Or maybe his FBI would run sting operations, sending same-sex couples to ask for Pastor Todd’s blessing and bringing down the hammer if Pastor Todd demurs.
Yes, plenty of Christian and Jewish congregations and denominations have embraced same-sex marriage. But that actually makes the impact of his plan more perverse.
O’Rourke wants to enact a proposal that would disproportionately discriminate against Muslims. To our understanding, there is not a single sect in Islam that recognizes marriages between two men or between two women.
Call it the nikah tax.
Religious freedom is literally the first freedom in the Bill of Rights. And it is a freedom that covers everyone, even practitioners of religions that espouse unpopular beliefs. The need to welcome outsiders and religious minorities has never been greater than it is today. This is why O’Rourke’s divisive, discriminatory policy against Muslims and the Islamic faith — and other faiths based on their specific doctrines — must be rejected forcefully by all people of good will.
All other Democratic candidates, if they care about basic rights and care for social peace, must distance themselves from this discriminatory policy. The moderators in Tuesday’s upcoming debate should make a point of asking each one whether they agree with O’Rourke that adherents of some religions should be treated as second-class citizens.
