Connect with us

Conservatism

They don’t want your guns, they want your doctrine

Published

on

They dont want your guns they want your doctrine

Beto O’Rourke may in fact be the most honest of the Presidential candidates. He may have gone full Swalwell in an attempt to revive a disastrous campaign; however in recognizing his present shortcomings, Beto O’Rourke has gone the AOC route of revealing the poorly hidden secrets of the Democrat Party. For years, the right was (falsely) accused of using a straw man fallacy with gun confiscation, but Beto O’Rourke has now been unabashed in championing the policy. O’Rourke merely confirmed what we already knew: the socialists want to confiscate our guns. They want the monopoly on force, so they can upend our way of life.

But this upheaval, revolution, is not about redistributing the wealth, fixing the climate, or reducing violence. Beto O’Rourke’s latest Freudian slip is all the more telling. At the gay town hall hosted by CNN, Beto O’Rourke said that the government should strip away tax exemption from churches that refused to partake in the gay agenda, which includes but is not limited to the performing of marriages, removal of ministry standards that prohibit (blatant) non-Christians, and permitting men to pee with little girls. Put more concisely, Beto O’Rourke wants to use the government to coerce the doctrine of the church.

Blatant unconstitutionality aside, if the socialists have their way, we will be at the mercy of the courts, legally speaking, who have an entrenched precedent of conjuring their own law. There have long been talks by atheist about taxing churches, a less unconstitutional means of persecuting the church. The atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation erroneously claims that we pay more in taxes because churches pay nothing, ignoring the history of the income tax in America. The Supreme Court touched on this issue in 1970, ironically close to Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court maintained in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York that:

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Even a Supreme Court devoid of Christians would have agreed that the Establishment Clause is best maintained through the financial insulation of church and state, that history showed that when the church supporting the state was as threatening to freedom as the reverse. But what Beto is suggesting is a next level takeover. He wants to use government to manipulate the doctrine. So after he has taken your guns, he will use “civil rights” law to target the church. But remember, nothing about Beto O’Rourke is original. He’s just trying to be AOC while also trying to be Eric Swalwell. The Equality Act that Taylor Swift loves to promote would also place churches in the cross hairs of the law, should they remain faithful.

This isn’t a new ambition. Socialism is atheist by its nature and has never existed with a thriving church. In similar fashion, socialism has corresponded with the direct persecution of the church, often with genocidal purposes. An ideology that lumps people in with the collective dismisses the individual pursuit of a relationship with God.

The Second Amendment is a defense mechanism against various forms of government tyranny, among them the aforementioned scenario. Pacifying civilians is never an end but always a means to an end. A disarmed people are neither safer nor freer. In this case, Beto O’Rourke, by the progression of his rhetoric, wants to disarm the populace and coerce doctrine. This is the exact reason to refuse disarming. The socialists want to control our doctrine, by extension, what we think. They ultimately, as Beto O’Rourke’s policy suggestion explicitly demands, want to command us to disobey God, to rewrite doctrine to appease the latest whims of society.

The socialists aren’t floating confiscation just for the sake of confiscation. Institutions that have historically rejected collectivism and adhere to an objective morality standard are natural adversaries to the modern socialist movement. Therefore socialists would see strategic gains in undermining these institutions. This logic is not new or surprising, but is becoming increasingly obvious and less conspiratorial. The words of Beto O’Rourke corroborate the suspicion that gun confiscation is a means to enact religious persecution among other tyrannies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement


Facebook

Trending