Buttigieg: Churches Aren't Like "Other Non-Profits," So No Transparency Needed

[DavidDvorkin]

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/12/29/buttigieg-churches-arent-like-other-non-profits-so-no-transparency-needed/

This does not make me happy. Pete remains my first choice for the nomination, but for some time I've had the impression that the status of religion would be a problem if he were president.

[stopbush]

1. Buttigieg's overt religiosity has been disqualifying for me.

Remarks like this only confirm my worst fears about him.

Religion has no place in politics or policy.

[TomSlick]

17. How is your disqualifying religious people from consideration

different than religious people disqualifying irreligious people?

[stopbush]

23. Non-believers generally don't treat fantasy - religious beliefs - as facts.

They don’t try to impose make believe on the rest of society as if make believe were fact.

That’s the difference.

[TomSlick]

25. So, just those whose beliefs you think fantasy are disqualified from public office?

If you impose silence on believers, aren't you imposing your lack of belief?

When VP Biden or Mayor Buttigieg reference their faith, they are not imposing them on the rest of society. No one's faith - or lack or faith - should be so fragile that it cannot abide hearing contrary opinions.

[stopbush]

31. I'm OK with people who realize their religious beliefs are just their opinions and not fact-based.

As soon as someone decides that their belief in, say, Zeus or Jesus as an existing supernatural god is guiding their decisions in life, I cut bait.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That doesn’t mean I need to respect their opinion, whether their opinion leads them to believe In religious dogma or anti-vacc woo. And in most cases, such beliefs make me question the believer’s competence.

[TomSlick]

34. So, the answer to my question is yes.

You impose a personal religious test. If someone has a belief in a god with rules for human decisions in life s/he cannot get your vote.

Are any of the current candidates sufficiently irreligious to earn your vote?

[stopbush]

35. I'll vote for the D nominee no matter who it is, including Mayor Pete.

Bloomberg is probably the closest thing there is to a nonbeliever running. Were I imposing a religious test, I would vote only for him and none of the others. Since I’ll vote for the D candidate, I guess I’m not imposing a religious test. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[TomSlick]

37. Surely, Trump posses such a threat to the republic

that we will all vote for the Democratic nominee - no matter who.

My question is (or should have been) does religious faith alone disqualify any of the Democratic primary candidates for you?

[stopbush]

38. How can it? They all profess some religious belief, even if they're lying about it.

Sad that they feel the need to lie if they're nonbelievers.

I doubt tRump has any religious beliefs. He lies to get the Xian vote. I’m not voting for that asshole just because he's a nonbeliever.

[TomSlick]

39. I agree about Trump. He worships only himself.

Mike Bloomberg was raised Jewish but appears to be currently non-practicing. Andrew Yang describes himself as "spiritual but not religious." Sen. Sanders describes himself as "not particularly religious."

I think you have choices if religious faith is disqualifying in the primary.

[stopbush]

40. Worship in any form - be it of a god or oneself - is a sick concept.

[LanternWaste]

32. We all treat fantasy as facts. Consistently.

Politics, economics, nation-states, etc. all exist nowhere but our own imaginations.

But I get it... we often tell ourselves that some imaginary constructs are more 'real' than others.

[stopbush]

33. Sorry, but that overused dodge doesn't stand up to even cursory examination.

The “nothing is real” defense is not a defense. It’s an admission that a defense can’t be mounted.

[Bettie]

36. Between him being extremely religious

and the sense I get that he's much farther right than he lets on, he's not at the top of my list of choices.

But, if he's the nominee, I'll vote for him and hope for the best.

[LonePirate]

2. That statement/position from Pete is certainly eye-opening.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

3. That must have pleased the pastors at the mega-churches.

Lack of accountability is a license to steal. If the restriction on churches making political contributions is lifted -- which the Right has been pushing for -- large amounts of cash can be laundered through the churches as "tithes," and the donors get to deduct the contributions from their taxes, to boot!

[BannonsLiver]

20. Show me a mega church

And I’ll show you a corrupt, tax immune cash machine led by people who drive expensive foreign cars and don’t fly commercial. I’m really surprised Pete could be so uninformed. It’s not a good luck for him.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

28. "Show me a mega church And I'll show you a corrupt, tax immune cash machine"

Like this one?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Disqualifying

[DavidDvorkin]

5. Gee, I hope there'll be responses from other Buttigieg supporters!

[nini]

6. I don't get this guy's support at all

This is one of the many reasons.

[TomSlick]

18. Careful.

Do you think VP Biden would favor government audits of the Catholic Church?

Many here are seriously suspicious (if not antagonistic) of all religion. I just posted a reply to a post attacking VP Biden for referencing his religious faith. The Democratic party - as opposed to many on DU - is not misotheist.

For what it's worth, I believe the religious foundation for the political philosophies of both VP Biden and Mayor Buttigeig to mean they will not be lightly deserted.

[Gothmog]

7. I was on the board of my Temple

This was a while back but we had 2000+ families and there was a great deal of concern about transparency. I disagree with Mayor Pete strongly

[TomSlick]

19. But, do you want government enforced audits of how the temple spends contributions?

What the government can tax or regulate, it can also destroy.

[Gothmog]

21. We have an audit for the congregation already and file tax returns that show a great deal

I have fun reviewing the audit each year at the board meeting since I have an accounting background

[TomSlick]

24. Sure. But do you want the government establishing standards for how contributions may be spent

as a requirement for maintaining charitable tax status?

[bluewater]

8. Mayor Pete needs to realize people see his lack of experience from statements like this.

"Buttigieg gave a non-response that somehow still makes things worse because he’s telling people of faith they would have permission, under his administration, to continue taking money from people without using it for the intended purposes."

[catchnrelease]

9. I'm not sure about this

At first when I read your post I thought 'oh no, I don't like that'. I am not really in favor of tax exempt status for churches to start with. But I don't think he really said no transparency is needed, unless I'm hearing it wrong. This is the quote from the article:

"… so, not being very familiar with the case that you’re describing, and supporting, as I do, the tax-exempt status of churches, I would also say that any time that you have practices, whether they are political practices or profit-making practices or anything else that is outside of the realm of why that tax-protected status exists, then it is very important that there be the right level of accountability, transparency, and responsibility, and compliance.

And that will be an important part, without any regard to any individual organization’s beliefs of how enforcement works and the IRS under my administration."

Isn't he saying here that if the church is engaging in political or money making activities that are not really church related, that they SHOULD be accountable, transparent etc? I guess you could question what the description 'outside the realm of why that tax-protected status exists' means. That could be the sticking point. As I said, I am opposed to the tax exempt status for churches so this is something I would question him on further.

[bamagal62]

10. Churches need MORE

Transparency. I also believe they should have to pay taxes.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

11. I think people are hearing what they want or expect to hear from Pete.

And I may be guilty of that too.

However, I did listen very closely more than once to what Pete had to say.

I came away with these thoughts: He does believe in transparency and so on.

He doesn't think all non-profits are the same.

And unfortunately, when he got to his final thought, the person asking the question spoke over him, obliterating his response.

I do not think that Pete is advocating that churches abdicate their responsibility for transparency.

Remember that there is no perfect candidate.

He does believe in the separation of church and state. But his faith is part of him in a way that perhaps some people cannot fathom.

[bluewater]

14. Is Mayor Pete encouraging that?

By being vague or equivocating on issues trying to appeal to as many voters as possible?

Seems so at times. Hence the non-response responses like the one in this OP.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. I don't think he's encouraging that at all.

I have listened to him talk many, many times and most of the time he is very clear about what he means. He has firm stances on many topics.

I hope he'll express more forcefully just what he seems to be saying here.

[Missn-Hitch]

12. Eh, I was hoping he was as religious as Obama.

I have donated to him, small amounts when I can.

I shall reconsider in the coming months.

[AngelicaHora]

13. I think people are hearing what they want to hear or just going by the headline

Don't know how you could conclude from his answer that he supports a lack of transparency and accountability for churches.

For a guy who speaks so clearly and is so articulate, it's amazing how often he gets misconstrued. Sometimes I think he would be better off just answering in simple broken up sentences like everyone else.

[rogue emissary]

15. He better explain the logic of that answer.

I don't see how transparency is good for some non-profits and not for all of them.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. He's right-- churches are not like other non-profits, or... not for profits...

but there needs to be a discussion about just how they differ and just where borders should be.

Remember that there is a constitutional reference to religion, but how far does that really extend? We do not let religions interfere with elections (supposedly) or perform criminal acts-- what else should we be able to do?

[defacto7]

26. This is a complete misrepresentation of the Pete's statement.

The article makes me question the motives and credibility of friendlyatheist dot pathos... and I'm atheist. I have just as much distaste for misinformation coming from secularist sites as I do religious sites. Misinformation serves no purpose to the cause of reason or the pursuit of reality.

[Glorfindel]

27. Oh, crap. I'm changing from Buttigieg to Undecided

That kind of pandering to "churches," most of which would like to see Buttigieg and me burned at the stake is totally disqualifying as far as I'm concerned. So very disappointed.

[brooklynite]

29. None of the Democratic candidates are proposing to change the way Churches report their activities

[RandiFan1290]

30. Creepy

Sorry, but that guy completely creeps me out.