New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
TeleBodyofChrist

New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Post by TeleBodyofChrist »

I guess the lines between church and state are going to become more blurred?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-order- ... 35720.html

Article text quoted below.
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- President Donald Trump's order to ease limits on political activity by religious organizations is being met with both enthusiasm and dread from religious leaders, with some rejoicing in the freedom to preach their views and endorse candidates and others fearing the change will erode the integrity of houses of worship.

Trump signed the executive order Thursday, saying it would give churches their "voices back." It directs the Treasury Department not to take action against religious organizations that engage in political speech.

"It's never good for the church or the state when the two get in bed with each other," said the Rev. Gregory Boyd, senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church, a nondenominational church in suburban St. Paul.

For pastors to use the pulpit "to get others to buy into their particular way of voting is, I think, a real abuse of authority," he added.

The Rev. Charlie Muller, pastor of the nondenominational Victory Christian Church in Albany, New York, is excited. As soon as details of the order are sorted out, his church plans to endorse a candidate for mayor.

"I'm very involved politically, but we've been handcuffed," Muller said. "We want to have a voice, and we haven't had that."

Trump had long promised conservative Christian supporters that he would block the IRS regulation, known as the Johnson Amendment, though any repeal would have to be done by Congress. The amendment, named for then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson, was enacted in 1954 and allows a wide range of advocacy on political issues. But it bars electioneering and outright political endorsements from the pulpit.

Soon after the president signed the order, an atheist group known as the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed papers in federal court seeking to block the measure.

The IRS does not publicize violation investigations, but only one church is known to have lost its tax-exempt status for breaking the rule. Because the limits are rarely enforced, some say the regulation never had teeth, and Trump's signature amounted to a photo opportunity.

The Rev. Wallace Bubar, pastor at Central Presbyterian Church in Des Moines, Iowa, described the order as "pandering to the religious right." He does not foresee any effect on his church or any other.

"For whatever reason, the religious right evangelicals have developed a persecution complex here in the last few years, and I think this is intended to address that," Bubar said.

Rabbi Jonah Pesner supports the Johnson Amendment, calling it "a gift to preachers."

"It gives me the freedom, from the pulpit, to peach about values and policy, but to be protected from partisanship," said Pesner, who runs the social and advocacy arm of Reform Judaism, the largest American Jewish movement. "Because if I were able to cross that partisan line as a preacher, I'd be under enormous pressure from stakeholders, from members, from donors. It would undermine my moral authority as a guardian of religious tradition."

Preachers, he said, must speak truth to power "in the spirit of the prophets," no matter which party holds power.

The Rev. Gus Booth, pastor of Warroad Community Church, an interdenominational congregation in far northwestern Minnesota, said he was ecstatic about the order, calling it an "incremental step" toward getting the rule overturned — an effort he's been championing for years.

During the 2008 presidential primary, Booth openly preached against Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He invited a newspaper reporter to his sermon, then sent a copy of the article and his sermon to the IRS, saying, "Hey, come get me," he recalled.

He said the IRS started an inquiry but dropped it. Since then, he's sent the IRS a sermon every year, showing he's in violation of the rule but practicing his right to free speech.

"I ought to be able to say anything that I want to say, wherever I want to say it," he said. "I don't lose free speech rights when I step behind the pulpit. In fact, that should be some of the most protected speech."

All Saints Church in Pasadena, California, felt the Johnson Amendment's effects firsthand. The IRS investigated the liberal Episcopal congregation over an anti-war sermon by a former rector days before the 2004 presidential election. That pastor did not endorse a candidate but suggested Jesus would condemn the Iraq War and then-President George W. Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war.

The church was not penalized, but it racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees over three years.

The current rector, the Rev. Mike Kinman, said the church supports the rule and that the clergy's task "is to interpret our faith for the common good," not to entangle faith in partisan politics. He called Trump's order "supremely unhelpful" and said it could open the door to people who want to buy endorsements or route money to political campaigns.

The Rev. Don Anderson, executive minister of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, said the Johnson Amendment can protect the clergy from being put in awkward spots, such as being asked to endorse a parishioner's relative.

"History teaches us this: Whenever the church is too close to government ... the church loses its integrity," he said.

___

Associated Press writers Jennifer Peltz in New York City and Mary Esch in Albany, New York, contributed to this report.
0 x
KingdomBuilder

Re: New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Post by KingdomBuilder »

Don't think I could make it through this article without some Dramamine :lol:
0 x
temporal1

Re: New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Post by temporal1 »

i haven't read the EO, or thought much about it.
i doubt it will make much change, or any change? .. i do not know.
my perception is that the intent is to lighten fear of litigation.
if so, that might be good - across the board.

my biggest misgiving is that it might be exploited for unintended purposes.
which happens 'way too often.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... us-liberty
EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

PROMOTING FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious liberty of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution and with applicable statutes and Presidential Directives, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom. The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government. For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans' first freedom. Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government. The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.

Sec. 2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.

Sec. 3. Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care Mandate. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section 300gg-13(a)(4) of title 42, United States Code.

Sec. 4. Religious Liberty Guidance. In order to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law, the Attorney General shall, as appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.

Sec. 5. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any individual or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other individuals or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 4, 2017.
0 x
Sudsy

Re: New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Post by Sudsy »

If we follow Jesus and the apostles example, we keep busy explaining and building the Kingdom of God not sponsoring some type of earthly kingdom. I think the NT made it quite clear that we are to live Kingdom life within whatever kingdom we live in here on earth. The early church was told how to live a Kingdom way of life within the slave system of that day whether a slave or a master of slaves. God will keep control of these worldly kingdoms and bring about change in his way and timing. What we don't need is another diversion from promoting the eternal Kingdom. Well, thats my 2 cents.
0 x
Bootstrap

Re: New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Post by Bootstrap »

temporal1 wrote:i haven't read the EO, or thought much about it.
i doubt it will make much change, or any change? .. i do not know.
my perception is that the intent is to lighten fear of litigation.
if so, that might be good - across the board.

my biggest misgiving is that it might be exploited for unintended purposes.
which happens 'way too often.
Let's remember what the Johnson Amendment is. Political contributions are not tax deductible:
Political Contributions

You can't deduct contributions made to a political candidate, a campaign committee, or a newsletter fund. Advertisements in convention bulletins and admissions to dinners or programs that benefit a political party or political candidate aren't deductible.
The Johnson Amendment says that you can't make your political contributions tax deductible by funneling them through a charity. It applies to all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, not just religious ones. Political campaigns are not non-profits. That's all that the Johnson Amendment does.

There's a big difference between freedom of speech and getting a tax deduction for what you want to say. Endorsing political candidates is a political activity. A church can found a sister organization to campaign, a pastor can run for office, a church can endorse the Right to Life movement, etc., but telling people who to vote for is considered a political activity that is not tax deductible.

I've been trying to find examples of churches that lost tax-exempt status because of this. Even churches like Jerry Falwell's, which were clearly engaging in direct political activity, did not lose their tax-exempt status. In 2008, 36 pastors from 20 states gave political sermons to protest the Johnson Amendment. I don't think anything happened to them. I think they all kept their tax exempt status, but I could be wrong - does anyone have information on this?

Why not allow all non-profits to endorse candidates and campaign? Evangelicals are a powerful voting block that has supported Donald Trump and the Republican party, and he is creating a way for them to make tax-deductible political contributions. Extending this to all non-profits would include non-profits that favor Democrats.

But there's a catch. The Johnson Amendment is law. The Executive Order cannot revoke the law, it can only say that the Trump Administration will not enforce the law.
0 x
Adam

Re: New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Post by Adam »

How ironic that the church has needed the state to tell it not to get involved in the affairs of the state, and how sad that the non-enforcement of this law will result in churches getting more and more involved in politics, reinforcing the idea that the church will somehow further the Kingdom of God, by influencing the kingdoms of this world.
0 x
temporal1

Re: New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Post by temporal1 »

Adam wrote:How ironic that the church has needed the state to tell it not to get involved in the affairs of the state, and how sad that the non-enforcement of this law will result in churches getting more and more involved in politics, reinforcing the idea that the church will somehow further the Kingdom of God, by influencing the kingdoms of this world.
my perception is .. the recent aggression of atheists-humanists-secularists has put many Christians on edge, not the non-enforcement of laws.

in recent years, it appears, atheists, et al, decided separation of church and state meant
"rule of+by atheists." i see that as quite a leap. :( .. so, this may be the pendulum swinging back a bit from that.

i pray that pastors+priests will lead their flocks to God, not government!
some fail, and, some fail-big.

it's best to focus on those getting it right. altho, they will not receive "air time" in the press.
their reward will be eternal, the rest will fade. those who get it right will do so, human law or no human law. so. this EO is not really all that significant. imho.

i just hope there aren't dire unintended consequences.

the big fail in my lifetime was MLK, Jr.
i believe he inadvertantly led his followers to government, not God.
by now, he has, himself, become a sacred cow, and seeking after government for all answers couldn't be more "everyday." that's a big deal to try to grasp. i don't believe all that has transpired was his intent .. but, he was a significant "player" in turning that corner. dire unintended consequences.

i do wonder, how would things be today if MLK, Jr had turned to God, not government?
it's fascinating to wonder.
0 x
temporal1

Re: New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Post by temporal1 »

o. and.
for those who say, and they say it often, that churches should not receive tax credits, etc. ..
i suggest that no entity that relies on everyone's combined tax dollars to function should be allowed to participate in partisan politics. this includes public schools, fire departments, police departments, etc.

those are two different matters, but, the latter (to me) is beyond argument.

in the U.S., churches do not depend solely on the public treasury, these other entities do.
compared with other countries, certain tax credits for U.S. churches are minimal.
0 x
TeleBodyofChrist

Re: New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Post by TeleBodyofChrist »

temporal1 wrote:
Adam wrote:How ironic that the church has needed the state to tell it not to get involved in the affairs of the state, and how sad that the non-enforcement of this law will result in churches getting more and more involved in politics, reinforcing the idea that the church will somehow further the Kingdom of God, by influencing the kingdoms of this world.
my perception is .. the recent aggression of atheists-humanists-secularists has put many Christians on edge, not the non-enforcement of laws.

in recent years, it appears, atheists, et al, decided separation of church and state meant
"rule of+by atheists." i see that as quite a leap. :( .. so, this may be the pendulum swinging back a bit from that.

i pray that pastors+priests will lead their flocks to God, not government!
some fail, and, some fail-big.

it's best to focus on those getting it right. altho, they will not receive "air time" in the press.
their reward will be eternal, the rest will fade. those who get it right will do so, human law or no human law. so. this EO is not really all that significant. imho.

i just hope there aren't dire unintended consequences.

the big fail in my lifetime was MLK, Jr.
i believe he inadvertantly led his followers to government, not God.
by now, he has, himself, become a sacred cow, and seeking after government for all answers couldn't be more "everyday." that's a big deal to try to grasp. i don't believe all that has transpired was his intent .. but, he was a significant "player" in turning that corner. dire unintended consequences.

i do wonder, how would things be today if MLK, Jr had turned to God, not government?
it's fascinating to wonder.
I think what happened with MLK, JR is a whole different animal than what churches are doing today. I can not imagine what life would be like if he HADN'T cried out for us to love one another. Black people still killed and mistreated I guess, oh wait...

I have been to churches that told their congregation who to vote for, and as far as I know they were not penalized. The churches that did this were trying to do as Adam said. They were trying to force Christianity and our belief system through law.

You can see the bad outcome of this by looking at history. If for some reason the pendulum swings the other way Christians can then be persecuted.

As far as atheists, etc. the incident I can think of immediately where this came up was prayer in schools. These were public schools that served all religions even atheists so, it was a problem of one religion being forced on others who did not wish to participate. I remember people being made to pray to a God they did not believe in. I went to public school. People should choose God on their own. I think we should share the Gospel not force it.

Church and state should be separate.
0 x
Bootstrap

Re: New Executive Order for Religious Liberty

Post by Bootstrap »

temporal1 wrote:i just hope there aren't dire unintended consequences.
I think the consequences are intended. Dire? That would probably be an exaggeration. But I don't see how this can be good.

After all, with large Republican majorities in both houses and a Republican president, if this were defensible, they could actually change the law instead of announcing they will not enforce it. Of course, it's not like this law has been enforced against churches anyway.

I would leave any church that got involved in political campaigns or told you who to vote for. Two Kingdom theology is important. Newt Gingrich and Jerry Falwell do not represent the Kingdom of God that I know.
0 x
Post Reply