The Left's Latest Idea: Defund Traditional Churches

Before weighing in on the LGBTQ Equality Town Hall that took place on CNN last week that represented a new low for the mainstream media, I thought it might make sense to look back at some of the predictions people made prior to 2015; when the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. 

Back in 2013, my high school newspaper asked representatives of the left and the right to weigh in on the question “should the government regulate same-sex marriage?” The person writing on behalf of the right, who attends the same church as me, warned that “if same-sex marriage becomes regulated by the government, it’s possible that many places of worship will be closed because they will not offer same-sex marriages.  Not only that, but businesses run by people who abide by these religious dogmas may be penalized as well. For instance, if a private business were to deny a homosexual couple a service (like wedding photography) if the owner felt it conflicted with personal beliefs, the homosexual couple can sue, the court will rule in favor of the couple, and the business could be heavily fined or even closed down.” The second half of her warning has already become reality for many Americans as a result of court rulings on same-sex marriage as well as anti-discrimination laws at the state and federal level while the first half of her warning outlines a scenario that may come true if one of the many Democratic candidates for President gets elected to the nation’s top job.

While Kamala Harris embarrassed herself and insulted the intelligence of the audience and the American people by identifying her pronouns as “she, her, and hers” (as if nobody could figure that out), Beto O’Rourke’s performance at the CNN town hall should have caused the most alarm among people of faith. When asked by Don Lemon if “religious institutions, like colleges, churches, (and) charities” should “lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage,” O’Rourke answered in the affirmative: “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. 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.” In other words, O’Rourke just said to the churches of America: start performing same-sex marriages or go bankrupt. 

Notice how Lemon said “oppose same-sex marriage.” In addition to demonstrating his total lack of respect for the concept of religious liberty, O’Rourke’s response also indicated his desire to become the thought police.  I actually talked about the ascent of the thought police, without using that particular phrase, in my very first opinion piece for my college newspaper.  My article included a quote from Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who said “the government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don't help celebrate same-sex marriage.  Laws that are supposed to prohibit discrimination might sound good, but the government has begun to use these laws to hurt people — to force them to conform and to silence and punish them if they don't violate their religious beliefs on marriage.”  I concluded the article by arguing that “whether you support or oppose same-sex marriage, no one should have to fear expressing their true beliefs.”  Beto O’Rourke obviously disagrees with that statement.

As for the thought police O’Rourke apparently fantasizes about creating, it already exists in the form of Hollywood and the mainstream media. I touched upon that in my article as well:

The fire chief in Atlanta, Georgia was forced to resign by the mayor after writing about his support for traditional marriage. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?  A florist in Washington was sued by the state’s Attorney General for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. Catholic adoption charities across the country are forced to shut down because they do not place children with same-sex couples.  The CEO of Mozilla was forced to step down after only 11 days on the job after it was revealed that he supported Proposition 8, which was placed on California’s ballots in 2008 giving voters the chance to either approve or reject a ban on same-sex marriage.  It passed but was later overturned. Finally, a member of the US Navy was removed from his duties after expressing his support for the biblical teachings of marriage.  Apparently, the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion, only applies to certain people. 

My article did not touch upon how public outcry forced the cancellation of an HGTV Program before it even began airing.  HGTV pulled the plug on “Flip it Forward” because one of the show’s stars, David Benham, dared to establish a reputation as “an outspoken opponent of gay marriage and abortion rights as well as a vocal critic of Islam.”  My article also neglected to mention the constant attacks directed at the fast food chain Chick-Fil-A because of CEO Dan Cathy’s views on same-sex marriage.

For the record, O’Rourke has a habit of taking the most extreme position on every single issue; from abortion to gun control.  His views might not represent the position of the majority of the Democratic candidates for President at this time but if definitely seems like his views and vision represents the endgame for the members of #TheResistance. 

Liberals like O’Rourke obviously feel emboldened now that the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor on the issue of same-sex marriage.  They will also cite public opinion as an excuse to push for the harassment of religious conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage.  Polling has shown a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage; with the highest level of support coming from the increasingly irreligious millennials. 

Liberals love to champion themselves as the party that always looks out for minority rights; most likely in an effort to convince all of the minority groups in America to vote for them.  As the late Charles Krauthammer explained, a large portion of the Democratic Party does not have a “coherent set of ideas,” instead “they have constituencies; they appeal to blacks, to Hispanics…to women but it’s mostly single women, to LGBT, they have constituencies. It’s a stitching together of constiutencies hoping that that will put them over 50 percent.” In addition to the electoral calculus behind Democrats’ constituency-building strategy, they seem to like it because it gives them bragging rights to portray themselves as the party of diversity, in contrast to the “closed-minded, old, and white” GOP. 

Now that liberals have become the majority, at least on the issue of same-sex marriage, they show no desire to treat the minority with the same level of generosity that they demanded conservatives treat racial and sexual minorities with. They seem to have a far greater animus towards the minority of Americans who believe in traditional marriage than any conservative has ever had towards the minority groups that liberals claim to represent the interests of.

Maybe liberals fail to realize that most people simply want to live out the dictates of their religions without interference of the government; after all, the First Amendment to the Constitution declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Liberals would obviously not look kindly upon anyone who suggested forcing Muslims (or vegetarians) to eat pork, Hindus to eat beef, and neither would conservatives for that matter. The devout Christians Beto O’Rourke seems interested in persecuting taking preserving the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman just as seriously as observant Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Catholics take their dietary restrictions when it comes to eating certain or all types of meat some or all of the time.   

For the most part, the debate on religious liberty has focused on private business owners who refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages. In Beto’s America, that debate now extends to churches, religious schools, and conservative non-profit organizations such as the Family Research Council.

O’Rourke may believe that he can force churches to conform to the liberal philosophy when it comes to same-sex marriage.  During a 2015 appearance on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Pastor Robert Jeffress made it clear that O’Rourke would have such luck. Jeffress made it clear that he and a wide variety of other religious leaders who subscribe to the traditional definition of marriage “are willing to endure government sanctions, whether it be fines or lawsuits or the loss of tax-exempt status, whatever it takes, we are willing to endure that not to violate our religious beliefs.” Jeffress also described the never-ending lawsuits against churches and people of faith committed to the doctrine of traditional marriage as “unintended consequences from the Court but intended consequences from the left.” 

O’Rourke can fantasize about implementing his far-left policy proposals when it comes to guns, abortion, and religious liberty but the success of his agenda will ultimately depend on who controls the other two branches of government.  Considering the importance of coattails in American politics, it seems highly unlikely that a President O’Rourke would have to deal with a Republican House of Representatives since a strong performance by him or any other Democrat would likely enable Democrats to keep control of their majority.  As for the Senate, a Democrat could probably win the White House while Republicans maintain a narrow majority in the Senate but Democrats winning control of the Senate seems more likely if Democrats win the White House.  Nonetheless, the Equality Act serves as the legislative version of O’Rourke’s policy proposal. The Heritage Foundation has discussed the aspects of the so-called Equality Act in detail; highlighting how “it would penalize Americans who don’t affirm new sexual norms or gender ideology.”

So, religious Americans face a profound choice in 2020.  Pat Robertson, one of the oldest leaders of the Religious Right, seems willing to abandon President Trump because of his decision to pull American troops out of Syria in accordance with the “America First” agenda. According to Robertson, “the president is in danger of losing the mandate of heaven” because I have nothing against Pat Robertson but he has a pretty horrendous record when it comes to predictions. Ahead of the 2012 Presidential Election, Robertson claimed that God told him that Mitt Romney would win the election and serve two terms as President of the United States.  Long story short, that did not happen. Robertson also incorrectly predicted that the world would end in the fall of 1982 and that a tsunami would hit the Pacific Northwest in 2006. So to those who think that Robertson’s prediction of President Trump losing his “mandate of heaven” will come true, take it with at least a grain of salt.

Robertson definitely has a right to express his opinion on President Trump’s foreign policy but the results of the 2020 Presidential Election and the future of religious liberty depend on evangelicals and religious Americans like him turning out for President Trump in equally large numbers as they did in 2016 if not more so. As Matt Schlapp pointed out, the 2020 Presidential Election is “not just about socialism, it’s about secularism.” Hopefully, both warped ideologies will go down in defeat in the 2020 Presidential Election.