Here is Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke on CNN last night:
Every Democratic candidate for President of the United States should be asked this question.
I have always appreciated Beto’s sense of conviction, but I hope he rethinks this one. His answer to Don Lemon shows a fundamental misunderstanding of religious liberty. In fact, this answer throws the First Amendment under the bus.
Beto has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. His campaign has been on life support for a long time and last night he probably killed it. You better believe that his comment will rally the Trump base and legitimate the fears of millions of evangelical Christians.
Beto says he does not want to run for Senate in 2020. But if he does decide to run for a Senate seat in Texas he may have just blew his chances. I am guessing that very few people in Texas embrace Beto’s secularism.
Here are a few responses to Beto’s remarks that I have seen online today:
Just think of all the groups whose tax exemptions Beto would have to revoke! Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, evangelicals, African American Protestants, Muslims, Pentecostals, traditional Jews…Methodists (for heaven’s sake, Methodists!!!).
— Thomas S. Kidd (@ThomasSKidd) October 11, 2019
Here is historian John Haas on Facebook: “Not that Beto has any chance of becoming the nominee, much less president, but it would be interesting to watch the president ordering the IRS to pull Dr. King’s church’s tax exempt status. Democrats do know that African-American churches are a big part of their informal infrastructure, right?
This would be plainly unconsitutional. State cannot tell church which rituals to perform or not perform. https://t.co/3xMa1A0qUN
— Adam Serwer🍝 (@AdamSerwer) October 11, 2019
I mean if these positions secretly had tons of support (the way Trump’s from 2016 did among GOP voters) you’d expect Beto to be polling better than 2-3 percent, right?
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) October 11, 2019
When I saw Beto’s remarks, I tweeted at Washington University law professor John Inazu:
— John Fea (@JohnFea1) October 11, 2019
Inazu is the author of Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference. Some of you know that I have extolled Inazu’s idea of “confident pluralism” many times at this blog. Here is a summary of the book:
In the three years since Donald Trump first announced his plans to run for president, the United States seems to become more dramatically polarized and divided with each passing month. There are seemingly irresolvable differences in the beliefs, values, and identities of citizens across the country that too often play out in our legal system in clashes on a range of topics such as the tensions between law enforcement and minority communities. How can we possibly argue for civic aspirations like tolerance, humility, and patience in our current moment?
In Confident Pluralism, John D. Inazu analyzes the current state of the country, orients the contemporary United States within its broader history, and explores the ways that Americans can—and must—strive to live together peaceably despite our deeply engrained differences. Pluralism is one of the founding creeds of the United States—yet America’s society and legal system continues to face deep, unsolved structural problems in dealing with differing cultural anxieties and differing viewpoints. Inazu not only argues that it is possible to cohabitate peacefully in this country, but also lays out realistic guidelines for our society and legal system to achieve the new American dream through civic practices that value toleration over protest, humility over defensiveness, and persuasion over coercion.
The paperback edition includes a new preface that addresses the election of Donald Trump, the decline in civic discourse after the election, the Nazi march in Charlottesville, and more, this new edition of Confident Pluralism is an essential clarion call during one of the most troubled times in US history. Inazu argues for institutions that can work to bring people together as well as political institutions that will defend the unprotected. Confident Pluralism offers a refreshing argument for how the legal system can protect peoples’ personal beliefs and differences and provides a path forward to a healthier future of tolerance, humility, and patience.
Inazu responded to me with this tweet:
From a few years ago, but seems relevant: https://t.co/Mahj40GNdU
— John Inazu (@JohnInazu) October 11, 2019
Here is a taste of Inazu’s linked piece “Want a vibrant public square? Support religious tax exemptions“:
When it comes to federal taxes, there is a fundamental reason we should protect religious organizations — even those we disagree with. Functionally, the federal tax exemption is akin to a public forum: a government-provided resource that welcomes and encourages a diversity of viewpoints. Tax exemptions for religious organizations and other nonprofits exist in part to allow different groups to make their voices heard. Past the preexisting baseline, groups and ideas wither or thrive not by government decree but by the choices of individual donors. In this setting, government has no business policing which groups are “in” and which ones are “out” based on their ideological beliefs. And there is no plausible risk that granting tax-exempt status to groups such as the Nation of Islam, the Catholic Church or even the American Cheese Education Foundation means that the government embraces or endorses those organizations’ views.
Tax-exempt status is available to a vast range of ideologically diverse groups. The meanings of “charitable” and “educational” under the Internal Revenue Code are deliberately broad, and “religious” organizations are not even defined. Among the organizations that qualify as tax-exempt, each of us could find not only groups we support, but also those we find harmful to society. And our lists of reprehensible groups would differ. The pro-choice group and the pro-life group, religious groups of all stripes (or no stripe), hunting organizations and animal rights groups — the tax exemption benefits them all.
Read the rest here.
Kelsey Dallas has a nice piece on the way other Democratic candidates responded to similar questions in last night’s CNN forum.
Here, for example, is Elizabeth Warren:
Warren seems to suggest that a man who believes in traditional marriage will not be able to find a woman to marry because women who uphold traditional views on marriage are few and far between. Really? This answer reveals her total ignorance of evangelical culture in the United States. (It may also reveal her ignorance of middle-American generally). If she gets the Democratic nomination she will be painted as a Harvard elitist who is completely out of touch with the American people.