WASHINGTON (RNS)—The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld President Trump’s temporary ban on refugees and immigrants from a group of primarily Muslim-majority countries in a 5-4 decision, arguing it is within the executive branch’s power to “suspend entry of aliens into the United States.”

“The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him … to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States,” the decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, reads, citing a statute in the United States code on inadmissible aliens.

“By its terms, (the statute) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with ‘ample power’ to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the (Immigration and Nationality Act).”

The decision, known as Trump v. Hawaii, spoke dismissively of the argument that the travel ban violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from establishing one religion: “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the proclamation violates the Establishment Clause.”

Two dissents written

Four justices wrote two dissents to the decision. Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, argued there is some evidence that exceptions to the ban are not being applied narrowly and show “anti-religious bias,” and would therefore “set the Proclamation aside.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said review of the ban didn’t “cleanse (it) of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created,” later adding, “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

Sotomayor also argued the ban violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees religious liberty, saying, “The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle.”

The court said it only considered the president’s executive order in making its decision, not Trump’s statements and tweets targeting Muslims, writing, “the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.”

Widely varied reactions

The president was quick to celebrate the decision, tweeting, “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!”

Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, issued a scathing rebuke of the ruling.

“This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures,” he said. “It repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision upholding Japanese-American imprisonment and swallows wholesale government lawyers’ flimsy national security excuse for the ban instead of taking seriously the president’s own explanation for his actions.”

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United, likewise criticized the decision.

“The Supreme Court today has forsaken one of our most foundational and cherished values—that our government must never single out any one religion for discrimination,” Laser said. “Our hearts break for the millions of Americans who, because of the Muslim ban, will continue to be separated from their loved ones and face peak rates of hate crimes and maltreatment.

“We refuse to be Americans divided. We are Americans united in the belief that people of all faiths, and with no religious affiliation too, all deserve equal treatment in America. We know well that when it comes to religious freedom, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated, ‘Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.’ We call on all Americans to rise up and repudiate the politics of fear, hate and division coming out of this administration.”

‘Straightforward win for President Trump’

Micah Schwartzman, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who specializes in the religious clauses of the U.S. Constitution, called the decision “a straightforward win for President Trump.”

“My read is that the 5-4 decision by the majority is a broader victory than many people expected,” he said. “Many thought the court would dodge this case—but it didn’t.”

Schwartzman, whom Sotomayor cites in her dissent, expressed frustration at what he described as the court “burying its head in the sand” by declining to consider Trump’s various negative comments about Islam.

“This was the big case: This was when the court was faced with clear religious animus coming from the president of the United States,” he said.

Schwartzman also argued there was a disconnect in the court’s approach to the ban compared with a recent Supreme Court ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited comments by CCRC officials supposedly deriding the religious beliefs of a baker who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding as evidence of anti-religious animus—something Schwartzman argued the court ignored in the travel ban decision.

“There is deep and profound inconsistency from the court between Masterpiece Cakeshop and this case,” he said. “The travel ban case casts Masterpiece under a deep cloud.”

Nelson Tebbe, professor at Cornell Law School, agreed.

“In the Cakeshop case, the court found that one or two statements by a multi-member board of officials sufficed to overturn its actions,” said Tebbe, who signed on to the same amicus brief as Schwartzman, in an email. “In the travel ban case, by contrast, overwhelming evidence of animus by a single decision maker, the president, was insufficient to overturn a policy with an obvious, discriminatory effect.”

Deluge of criticism

The travel ban has endured a near-constant deluge of criticism since then-candidate Donald Trump first proposed a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims” entering the country while campaigning for president in December 2015.

After he was elected, Trump signed an executive order instituting a more specific version of the idea on Jan. 27, 2017, banning refugees and migrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The order triggered widespread protests at airports across the country, and an unusually broad spectrum of faith groups—including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, National Association of Evangelicals, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the National Council of Churches—either rejected or outright condemned the ban.

Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, had joined 30 other legal scholars in a friend-of-the-court brief arguing the ban is unconstitutionally based in religious animus toward Muslims.

“We are deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s refusal to repudiate policy rooted in animus against Muslims,” said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee.

In giving such broad deference to President Trump, the court neglects its duty to uphold our First Amendment principles of religious liberty. Safeguarding religious liberty requires the government to remain neutral with regard to religion, neither favoring one religion over another nor preferring religion or irreligion.

“More than ever, preserving American religious freedom requires the active involvement of all citizens to denounce religious bigotry in all its forms.”

Legal challenges

The ban was beset by legal challenges. Within days, courts issued a nationwide temporary restraining order restricting enforcement of large parts of the ban. Trump subsequently signed a new version of the executive order that, among other things, removed Iraq from the list of countries affected by the ban.

That, too, was met with lawsuits: The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued yet another temporary restraining order in March 2017 that prevented the amended version from going into effect.

The debate made its way to the Supreme Court, which issued a decision on June 26, 2017, that reinstated parts of the order and set oral arguments on the case for later that year. But a third version of the ban, also signed in September, prompted the court to delay the arguments. A Hawaii judge halted this version in October.

Oral arguments in the case finally were offered before the court on April 25, 2018, with a wide swath of faith groups signing on to several amicus briefs siding with those condemning the ban.

The government defended the ban, arguing that the president has the authority to create immigration policy, that the ban itself doesn’t amount to a “Muslim ban” that discriminates unconstitutionally and that Trump’s comments about Islam during the campaign were “made by a private citizen before he takes the oath of office and before … (he) receives the advice of his cabinet.”

But the state of Hawaii disagreed on several counts, arguing that since Trump has refused to disavow his previous remarks about Islam—such as “I think Islam hates us”—those comments still paint the ban.

According to a 2017 poll from the Public Religion Research Institute, 55 percent of Americans oppose the ban, compared with 40 percent who approve. Among major religious groups, only white evangelical Protestants expressed majority support (61 percent) for the ban, compared with 48 percent of white Catholics, 42 percent of white mainline Protestants, 37 percent of Hispanic Catholics and 31 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans. Only 24 percent of black Protestants expressed support for the ban.

With additional reporting by Managing Editor Ken Camp.

EDITOR’S NOTE: On Wednesday afternoon, June 20, President Trump signed an executive order mandating that officials continue to criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border illegally but requiring them to seek to find or build facilities that can hold families—parents and children together—instead of separating them while their legal cases are considered by the courts.

The recently implemented zero-tolerance immigration policy that separates children from their parents who cross the border without proper documentation prompted strong reaction from some Baptists—particularly after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions cited the New Testament in support of the policy.

“People who violate the law of our land are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” Sessions said at a June 14 gathering in Fort Wayne, Ind.

Sessions made the comments two days after messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Dallas approved a resolution calling for reform in the immigration system to “make it more just, humane, efficient and orderly.”

The resolution expressed messengers desire for reform that includes “an emphasis on securing our borders and providing a pathway to legal status with appropriate restitutionary measures, maintaining the priority of family unity, resulting in an efficient immigration system that honors the value and dignity of those seeking a better life for themselves and their families.”

‘Outrageous’ and ‘heinous’

Suzii Paynter, executive coordinator, expressed outrage both at the effect of the zero-tolerance policy and Sessions’ use of Scripture to justify it.

“The policy of ripping children from the arms of parents is outrageous, and quoting Scripture in its defense is heinous,” Paynter said.

“While it is necessary to control the flow of immigrants and refugees into the country, the use of tactics meant to traumatize and inflict irreparable harm to children and their parents is un-American and certainly do not appear anywhere in the Bible I read.”

Russell Moore, president of Southern Baptists’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, posted a photo of a crying immigrant child to his Twitter account June 18 with the tweet: “Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the sojourner suffers extortion in your midst; the fatherless and widow are wronged in you” (Ezekiel 22:7).”

Later, Moore posted a recording obtained by ProPublica from inside a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility. On it, listeners can hear crying immigrant children who were separated from their parents and the response of a Border Patrol official. Moore tweeted: “Are our consciences so seared that we do not hear the horror in this?”

Moore was among the religious leaders who signed a June 1 letter from the Evangelical Immigration Table to President Trump, urging his administration to reverse the zero-tolerance policy that separates families.

‘Need our prayers’

Gus Reyes, director of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, issued a statement June 18 calling for prayer for everyone involved in the situation along the Rio Grande.

“These children and their parents need our prayers,” Reyes said. “This is a frightening time for them, because they have been separated in a strange land. Children and families hold special places in our hearts because of the teachings of Scripture.

“Our law enforcement personnel along the border need our prayers. They are in a difficult situation of having to enforce laws that are causing human suffering. It is always hard to see children suffer.

“Our political leaders in Washington need our prayers. Many are torn between competing interests related to securing our southern border, enabling needed workers to enter, upholding existing law and protecting families.”

‘Honor a higher authority’

Reyes noted he was in Washington, D.C., meeting with lawmakers about the matter, and he urged others to practice responsible Christian citizenship.

“Scripture instructs us to respect the laws of nations, but the Bible also indicates Christ followers are to honor a higher authority,” he said. “We obey the laws of governments unless they call on us to violate the instructions of God, then we seek to change the laws. God is sovereign over nations, and in a democracy Christians have a special responsibility to bring godly influence to government policies.

“Living in a democracy, Christians have a responsibility to seek to influence government in the direction of care and justice for all people, especially the ‘least of these,’ as noted by Jesus in Matthew 25.”

‘We can do better’

Kathryn Freeman, director of public policy for the CLC, participated in a June 18 call-in news conference organized by the Evangelical Immigration Table. It featured a panel of Christian women who discussed refugee resettlement and justice for Dreamers, as well as concern about the forced separation of immigrant families.

Freeman noted the plight of asylum-seeking parents who have fled violence in Latin America, only to find themselves criminally charged and separated from the children at the U.S. border.

“Texas evangelicals do not want this done in our name,” Freeman said. “To tear small children from their parents is absolutely heartbreaking, and it is not legally necessary. Every past administration has exercised discretion in these cases, especially when individuals have credible fears of violence in their home country and when their children are affected. We can do better as a nation.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The right-leaning Robert P. George and the left-leaning Cornel West may not agree ideologically, but they came to the nation’s capital to urge others to get to know people who are not like them, just as Martin Luther King Jr. did.

A Baylor University event marking the 50th anniversary of King’s assassination aimed to shed light on the minister and civil rights leader who is “so often evoked and so rarely studied in any detail,” said Dean Thomas Hibbs, director of Baylor in Washington, the school’s outpost in the capital.

Organizers said they arranged for the discussion of King’s legacy as a display of brotherhood from two people of widely different perspectives.

“Their friendship is a counter to so much of what ails our public life,” Hibbs told the audience at the luncheon at a Capitol Hill hotel.

‘Nobody has a monopoly on the truth’

Indeed, George, whose Twitter page features a photo of him embracing West, and West, who calls George “my conservative brother,” traded compliments as they each highlighted King’s theology.

“We’re a couple of guys with some pretty strong opinions, but we recognize nobody has a monopoly on the truth,” said George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a senior fellow at the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. “We have something to learn from each other, even across the lines of religious or theological or philosophical or political difference.”

George and West have worked together 11 years, first jointly teaching a class at Princeton—with reading material ranging from Sophocles’ “Antigone” to King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”—and later drafting a statement on “freedom of thought and expression” on college campuses that reflects the stance they’ve been discussing together in public sessions.

West said he’s had to answer critics who can’t understand how he travels around the country with George: “I say, ‘Have you met him? Have you sat down and talked with him?’”

Search for Beloved Community

They sat onstage, comfortably taking turns highlighting how King had crossed divides in search of his goal of a “beloved community.”

West and George agree the emphasis on King should be on his role as a Christian minister, although his civil rights activism also is grounded in his being a product of the black community.

“The last thing we ever want to do with Brother Martin is view him as some isolated icon on a pedestal to be viewed in a museum,” said West, professor of the practice of public philosophy at Harvard University. “He’s a wave in an ocean, a tradition of a people for 400 years so deeply hated, but taught the world so much about love and how to love.”

Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas, the Hindu leader Mohandas Gandhi and the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber influenced King’s approach, the two scholars noted. But that approach did not bring him broad appeal during his lifetime. King was criticized not only by racist segregationists, but also by black activists who didn’t agree with his commitment to nonviolence, George said.

“It wasn’t that everybody agreed we got a hero,” said George, who thinks King’s image has become “sanitized” over the years. “It was only after April 4, 1968, when he was assassinated, when he was martyred, that we began to have now the heroic King.”

Learn ‘heroic humility’

West added that King never received a majority vote in a popularity poll as he worked towards his beloved community—the idea that all people are equally deserving of justice and peace—but, he said, more people need to have that “unbelievable courage.”

“We learn from everyone, as Brother Martin, heroic humility,” said West. “That means that we ought to be jazz-like. We ought to not just lift our voices but recognize you can’t lift your voice without bouncing your voice off that of others.”

In brief interviews after their talk, the scholars said they hope their example will help others learn to listen to—and not just hear—people outside their individual tribes and silos.

“Listening means that you’re taking on more of what the person is saying,” said George. “You’re trying to understand it. You’re considering whether there might be some truth in it.”

West added that what’s unusual about their approach is that it’s public.

“There are examples of deep friendships and sisterhoods and brotherhoods across ideological, political lines,” he said. “People want to protect their image vis a vis certain constituencies.”

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado Christian baker who refused to design a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception, but the ruling’s narrow scope prompted widely ranging responses—and even led opposing lawyers to claim at least partial victory.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on behalf of cake baker Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, but the justices focused primarily on how the commission handled the case rather than on broader questions of religious liberty and discrimination.

Commission showed ‘hostility’ toward religious convictions

The same-sex couple—David Mullins and Charlie Craig—filed a complaint with the commission, saying they were being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. Phillips insisted he should be granted an exemption to Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act based on his sincerely held religious views about marriage.

The state Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of the case was “inconsistent with the state’s obligation of religious neutrality,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, noting the baker’s refusal was based on “his sincere religious beliefs and convictions.”

“The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection,” Kennedy wrote.

No ‘blanket exemption’ to nondiscrimination laws

The court failed to address the core question by basing its decision on the actions of the administrative commission charged with enforcing civil rights laws, rather than determining whether the business owner violated the law by refusing to provide a service, said Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

“Religious liberty protects beliefs and actions related to marriage. It does not mean that religious beliefs provide blanket exemptions to nondiscrimination laws that protect our neighbors,” Hollman said.

At the same time, she added: “Religious objectors, like all Americans, have the right to be treated with respect and not to have their religious beliefs denigrated. As we consider these difficult issues in future cases, we all will fare better when we acknowledge the legitimate interests on both sides of these disputes and approach each other with civility and respect.”

Last October, the Baptist Joint Committee filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing Colorado’s public accommodation law, as applied in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, “strikes the right balance between respect for religious liberty and the protection of individuals’ right to participate in the commercial marketplace free from discrimination.”

‘A win for all Americans’

More than a month earlier, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission had filed a brief arguing the “free exercise of religion by secular vocations in the marketplace should be no less protected than sacred vocations in the ministry.”

“The Supreme Court got this one right,” said Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, who called the court’s ruling “a win for all Americans.”

“At stake at this debate was the question of whether or not the state can force an individual to violate their conscience. We need to live in the kind of country where we can be free to persuade one another, not bully each other into silence,” Moore said.

“The Supreme Court’s responsibility is to protect Americans from governments and agencies that would make such and demand. I’m glad to see they have. My hope is that this will be a sign that the court will continue to uphold conscience freedom and personal liberty in future cases.”

Both sides claim partial victory

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Mullins and Craig during the appeal process, claimed at least a limited victory, saying the Supreme Court “did not accept arguments that would have turned back the clock on equality by making our basic civil rights protections unenforceable.”

“The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people.” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm that aided Phillips early in the case, likewise claimed a victory in the court’s decision, saying its “makes clear that the government must respect … (Phillips’) beliefs about marriage.”

“Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment,” said Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Colorado and its Civil Rights Commission was “openly antagonistic” toward Phillips and toward his religious views about marriage, she added.

“The court was right to condemn that,” Waggoner said. “Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—At a dinner last year with prominent evangelical Christians in the Blue Room of the White House, Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner invited their guests to discuss the issues most important to them.

At the top of the pastors’ list was “bringing the nation together.”

“We could really do this, and we can do it way beyond the rhetoric. For example, let’s look at prison reform,” said Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

Johnnie Moore, founder of The Kairos Co., a strategy firm, who recently was appointed to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, described it as an “incredibly enthusiastic conversation.”

“Sparks were flying all around the table, and then Jared had this idea,” Moore said. “What if we got every church or synagogue to take responsibility for one prisoner re-entering society? You think that could work?”

First Step Act draws bipartisan support

That dinner planted the seed of what would grow to become the proposed First Step Act, aimed at reducing the number of people who return to prison after serving time.

That bill overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week with bipartisan support from lawmakers and with the support of a number of prominent evangelical Christians and institutions.

While the bill’s fate in the Senate is uncertain, the support it’s gained from both sides of the aisle already is being counted as a major success on an issue evangelicals long have tried to put their stamp on.

“There’s never been greater interest in America in criminal justice reform,” said Craig DeRoche, senior vice president for advocacy and public policy at the evangelical organization Prison Fellowship. “We have a lot of hope.”

Prison Fellowship leads the way

Prison reform has been a signal issue for evangelicals since Charles Colson, a former aide to President Nixon, came to faith in Christ while serving seven months in Maxwell Prison in Alabama for Watergate-related crimes.

Colson, as White House special counsel, had first framed Nixon’s “political template of being tough on crime and long sentences,” DeRoche said. Colson’s prison experiences produced a change of heart.

“Within three years, he was saying that model was in conflict with our values as Christians and as Americans and that it would lead to failure,” DeRoche said.

Prison Fellowship, which Colson founded in 1976, is now the country’s largest Christian prison ministry.

The plight of prisoners has been a priority for churches large and small “almost as long as the church has existed,” Moore said.

After Colson’s death in 2012, many evangelical Christians picked up the cause of criminal justice reform, Moore said. As the U.S. prison population has swelled, he added, the issue has touched many Christians personally.

Working with the White House

Since Trump has taken office, DeRoche has taken part in meetings with Trump’s aides, including his son-in-law, Kushner, but also with Cabinet members and staffers from the departments of Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Housing and Urban Development.

It’s not unusual for the White House to welcome that input from Prison Fellowship, however, DeRoche noted. The organization has worked with every administration since President Carter.

The conversation about prison reform isn’t just a religious conversation anymore as the justice system, from the White House down to local prosecutors, has begun to weigh the cost of mass incarceration.

Seeking to reduce recidivism

First Step, an acronym for Formerly Incarcerated Re-enter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person, focuses on recidivism, the number of people who finish their prison terms or are paroled, only to land back in confinement.

Among other things, First Step would encourage prisoners to join programs, such as faith-based classes and job-training programs that have been shown to reduce recidivism. With “earned time credits” awarded for their participation, prisoners could be released early to halfway houses or home confinement. It also would assess which programs are most effective for individual prisoners.

In the year since the dinner in the Blue Room, the initial enthusiasm had to weather seemingly endless meetings, attempts to act through executive orders in place of legislation and other delays—a previous iteration, the Prison Reform and Redemption Act, foundered in April over its lack of sentencing reform provisions.

More than 20 Christian, Jewish and secular institutions had signed a letter of support for that bill, including Prison Fellowship, the Christian Community Development Association, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

First Step, not final destination

After some revisions, the First Step Act was ushered through despite similar objections that it treats only “back end” causes of mass incarceration—recidivism—and not “front end” causes such as mandatory sentencing. Heather Rice-Minus, Prison Fellowship’s vice president of government affairs, said there isn’t enough consensus among lawmakers now to get a bill including sentencing reform to the president’s desk.

“We’re still going to fight for that,” Rice-Minus said. “We consider the First Step Act just that—it’s a first step.”

Democrats in the Senate reportedly still are divided, saying the reforms aren’t enough without also looking at sentencing. So are some Christians, especially those on the left.

“There’s so much in the bill that gives false hope to people,” said Aundreia Alexander, associate general secretary for action and advocacy at the National Council of Churches.

Moving the right direction

Rodriguez, the head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said he too is disappointed that the bill overlooks sentencing reform. The disparity in sentencing—that people who are African-American or Hispanic are more likely to be incarcerated than people who are white—is something he said nobody can deny, no matter what their politics. Christians are compelled by the message of Jesus to speak against such injustice, he added.

When he mentioned the possibility to his multi-ethnic congregation, he said, “I had African-American men who started to weep and cry.”

At the same time, Rodriguez said the First Step Act is a step in the right direction.

Evangelical Christians also are glad to show they can have influence on justice and equity, matters the public may not associate with the religious right.

“While much of the media obsession has been on evangelicals’ role in pro-life issues or religious freedom, I think we’ve actually made the most consequential difference in these areas of social concern,” Moore said. “And we’re more involved in those conversations now than the other ones, honestly.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The Good Book is shaping up to be a good draw on the crowded landscape of museums in the nation’s capital.

The Museum of the Bible, the newest tourist attraction near the National Mall, has drawn 565,000 visitors since it opened six months ago, according to museum figures released May 17.

While that’s less than half as many as visited the National Museum of African American History and Culture in its first six months, it’s enough to assure organizers a robust audience is hungry for Bible-related exhibits.

“We are pleased that more than half a million people have walked through the iconic Gutenberg Gates since last November to experience the largest museum dedicated to the Bible,” said Museum of the Bible President Cary Summers.

“As we enter the peak of tour season, we look forward to welcoming new and returning guests to engage with the history, narrative and impact of the most influential book ever written.”

By comparison, other museums had a smaller draw in their first half-year. The Broad, a new contemporary art museum in Los Angeles, attracted fewer than 500,000 within six months of its 2015 opening.

More than 1,700 groups have visited the high-tech Museum of the Bible, which sits two blocks from the National Mall near the U.S. Capitol, art galleries and other museums. Officials said visitors travel an average of 260 miles to the 430,000-square-foot museum.

The museum cost $500 million and took three years to build. Co-founded by Steve Green, the president of the Hobby Lobby craft store business, it opened with 1,600 items in its permanent collection, about three-quarters of which are Bibles and biblical manuscripts.

In the months before it opened, Museum of the Bible officials distanced themselves from a Hobby Lobby settlement in which the company agreed to return 5,500 artifacts illegally imported from Iraq and to pay the Justice Department a $3 million fine. Museum officials had to ask partners to loan them items to complete an exhibit.

The museum has free admission to visitors, who reserve timed-entry passes or walk up to its doors, but it suggests a donation of $15 per person.

In August, the Museum of the Bible will sponsor a temporary exhibit, titled “Pilgrim Preacher: Billy Graham, the Bible and the Challenges of the Modern World,” about the evangelist who died in February.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Tony Perkins, the head of the conservative Christian lobbying group Family Research Council, has been appointed to a U.S. government commission dedicated to “defending the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad.”

Perkins was appointed to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission created in 1998 through the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act. The commission issues an annual report on international religious freedom issues.

“I am grateful to Majority Leader McConnell for appointing me to this prestigious position. From my post at USCIRF, I look forward to doing all that I can to ensure that our government is the single biggest defender of religious freedom internationally,” said Perkins, an evangelical Christian and frequent faith adviser to President Trump’s administration.

Perkins expressed particular interest in addressing religious freedom issues in nations that top the commission’s list of “Countries of Particular Concern,” saying, “It is my hope that through the work of USCIRF, the world will become one step closer to recognizing the vital role religious freedom and the defense of religious minorities play in peace, security and human flourishing.”

Perkins intends to remain president of the Family Research Council during his two-year term on the commission.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Family Research Council an anti-LGBT hate group, although Perkins and the council dispute the label.

Perkins has been a consistent supporter of Trump, telling Politico in January he and other evangelical Christians gave the president a “mulligan” for past behavior that may have been at odds with conservative Christian values.

WASHINGTON—A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a law prohibiting most state-authorized sports gambling likely will have little impact on Texas, but it could give a green light to legalized sports betting in surrounding states, some anti-gambling activists noted.

Court overturned 1992 law

On May 14, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which generally barred state-authorized sports gambling.

The law carved out exceptions in Nevada, Montana, Oregon and Delaware—states that had approved some forms of sports wagering before the law took effect in 1992. New Jersey—which fought for years to legalize sports gambling at its casinos and racetracks— successfully challenged the constitutionality of the law.

“The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make,” said Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority. “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not.”

The four major U.S. professional sports leagues—MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL—along with the NCAA had urged the court to uphold the prohibition on sports gambling to protect the integrity of their games. However, some individual owners of professional teams voiced support for legalized sports betting.

No immediate impact on Texas

While the court decision opens the door to the possibility of gambling expansion in additional states, it does not compel any state to legalize sports gambling.

The Texas Constitution generally makes gambling in the state illegal. Exceptions require two-thirds approval in both the Texas Senate and Texas House, as well as voter approval of a constitutional amendment.

“I don’t think the court decision will affect Texas at all—except it probably will bring companies out of the woodwork to hire lobbyists in Austin who will try to make the argument in favor of legalized sports gambling,” said Rob Kohler, a consultant with the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission.

However, Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and a majority of Texas lawmakers have shown no interest in expanding legalized gambling in Texas to include sports betting, he added.

Even so, he pledged to keep a close watch on efforts by online fantasy sports enterprises to gain a foothold in Texas.

Gambling expansion likely in surrounding states

Kohler also noted a strong possibility sports gambling may “spring up” in states with casinos, but he predicted it will fail to produce the kind of revenue for public education or other needs that its proponents claim.

Rodger Weems, chair of Texans Against Gambling, offered a similar assessment.

“While we are disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on state-sponsored or state-authorized sports gambling, we do not believe it will have any immediate affect on Texas, at least in the short run. Texas has strong constitutional prohibitions against gambling, which this decision does not overturn.” Weems said.

“Unfortunately, this is not the case in our neighboring states of Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico and probably Arkansas. The decision will likely open the door to gambling expansion in those states.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—President Trump unveiled a new initiative that aims to give faith groups a stronger voice within the federal government and serve as a watchdog for government overreach on religious liberty issues.

Trump signed the executive order May 3, the National Day of Prayer, “to ensure that the faith-based and community organizations that form the bedrock of our society have strong advocates in the White House and throughout the federal government,” a White House document reads.

The White House said those working on the initiative will provide policy recommendations from faith-based and community programs on “more effective solutions to poverty” and inform the administration of “any failures of the executive branch to comply with religious liberty protections under law.”

Trump said his initiative would help assure that the government supported people of faith.

“This office will also help ensure that faith-based organizations have equal access to government funding and the equal right to exercise their deeply held beliefs,” he said. “We take this step because we know that in solving the many, many problems and our great challenges, faith is more powerful than government, and nothing is more powerful than God.”

‘Takes more than a proclamation’

Government and religious organizations can partner in a constitutional manner, but it demands great care and hard work, said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

“Details matter. We know from our experience and advocacy efforts with the prior two administrations that government and religious organizations can partner in constitutional ways to deliver social services, but that getting it right takes more than a proclamation and a Rose Garden ceremony,” Tyler said.

“Standing up for religious freedom requires both protecting the free exercise rights of all Americans and ensuring that government neither promotes any one faith tradition nor favors religion over irreligion.”

Previous partnerships

The creation of the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative follows the initiatives of previous administrations that created similarly named offices to foster partnerships between the government and religious organizations.

President Obama launched the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, whose work ranged from fighting the Ebola and Zika viruses to feeding schoolchildren nutritious meals in the summertime.

That office, along with similar ones in 13 federal agencies, followed President George W. Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The White House said agencies and executive departments that do not have such offices will have a designated liaison to the new initiative.

Trump supporters cheer initiative

Johnnie Moore, a minister and public relations consultant who serves as an unofficial spokesman for a group of evangelicals that often advises Trump, said the new initiative takes an approach different from the previous ones.

“Ordering every department of the federal government to work on faith based partnerships—not just those with faith offices—represents a widespread expansion of a program that has historically done very effective work and now can do even greater work,” he said.

Pentecostal televangelist Paula White, an evangelical adviser to the president, cheered the new initiative.

“I could not be more proud to stand with President Trump as he continues to stand shoulder to shoulder with communities of faith,” she said. “This order is a historic action, strengthening the relationship between faith and government in the United States, and the product will be countless transformed lives.”

The White House also said the new initiative will be led by an adviser who will work with faith leaders and experts outside the federal government. Obama’s initiative also had an office director with a council of outside experts.

With additional reporting by Managing Editor Ken Camp.

NASHVILLE (BP)—On the 50th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, Baptists noted progress in eliminating race-based housing discrimination while also citing a need for further improvement.

Economist and ethicist Craig Mitchell noted the volume of housing discrimination today is nowhere near what it was decades ago, thanks in part to the Fair Housing Act signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on April 11, 1968.

The bill outlawed discrimination in rental, sale and financing of housing based on race, religion and national origin.

Challenges remain

Yet housing challenges remain. At the MLK50 conference in Memphis, cosponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Chicago pastor Charlie Dates said a failure to combat housing discrimination is among black Christians’ frustrations “with our white evangelical brothers and sisters.”

“We want you to tell your city fathers” the discriminatory housing practices of “contract leasing, redlining and neighborhood improvement laws—intended to keep us living in segregated quarters—were offensive to God and that you wouldn’t stand for them, by the strength of the Lord Jesus Christ,” Dates, pastor of Chicago’s Progressive Baptist Church, said in an April 3 address.

Some of the practices he referenced were among those outlawed by the Fair Housing Act.

Contract leasing was a practice by which lenders would pretend to sell a home to African-Americans but actually lease it, Dates said in an interview. Redlining referenced some financial institutions’ practice of refusing to grant loans for housing in minority neighborhoods. Neighborhood improvement laws helped raise property values in urban neighborhoods, but at times they have driven prices too high for poor, minority residents to afford.

Members of the church he serves still experience forms of housing discrimination, Dates said.

For example, low property values in many minority neighborhoods result in less property tax revenue and, in turn, less money for local public schools than is available in affluent neighborhoods, Dates said.

Mortgage insurance also is more expensive in some minority neighborhoods, he added, and the comparatively lower wages of educated black workers may prevent them from moving into the same neighborhoods as their white peers.

Selective enforcement

According to an April 11 NPR report, the Fair Housing Act “has only been selectively enforced,” and “a lot of the same neighborhoods in big cities that were redlined in the 1930s and 1940s have been locked out of the economy. They don’t benefit during boom times, and they’re devastated during downturns.”

“It’s primarily the black church that is arguing against this” type of housing discrimination, Dates said. In some instances, white churches have left racially transitioning neighborhoods “rather than living in those neighborhoods and protesting.”

White Christians should ask government officials to invest funds for “quality housing, grocery stores and schools … outside their neighborhoods” and in “the neighborhoods where people need them the most,” Dates said.

Anglo churches may want to consider partnering with African-American churches to help struggling neighborhoods, he said, and some white Christians may want to consider moving into black neighborhoods.

Mitchell agreed some housing discrimination still exists and can be “as simple as telling people, ‘This place of housing is no longer available,’” or “arbitrarily raising the price so the person who applies for housing may not get it.”

‘Need to do right by all’

For churches, combatting housing discrimination should include reminders from the pulpit that “we serve a God who knows what’s in our hearts, and we need to do right by all men because of it,” said Mitchell, an African-American who has taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Byron Day, president of the National African American Fellowship of the SBC, said he is not aware of any explicit housing discrimination in the region where he ministers—a Maryland county that is “a little more expensive.” The Fair Housing Act “has certainly helped,” he said.

However, “cognitive bias” against blacks and other minorities may cause them to be denied housing loans at times, Day, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Laurel, Md., said in an interview.

“Having roundtable discussions with local government representatives” is one way for Christians to address housing discrimination, Day said, adding pastors should address racism generally as it arises in the biblical texts they preach.

Former NAAF President K. Marshall Williams said he deeply appreciates “the struggle and the sacrifices made by many on this the 50th anniversary the Fair Housing Act,” but added, “I am grieving that housing discrimination is still problematic and another evidence of systemic and institutional racism in our land.”

“In a multiplicity of our cities, urban gentrification seems to be not just about improving housing and making neighborhoods safe, but it’s essentially taking over and redefining cultures and urban environments all over the nation, primarily in predominantly black and brown neighborhoods,” said Williams, pastor of Nazarene Baptist Church in Philadelphia.

“The intentional displacement of many who are poor, without service or recourse, resulting in increased poverty, emotional distress and hopelessness and in some cases homelessness, is an abomination to our God.”

He urged churches and conventions to “stand up for righteousness by withdrawing their monies from banking institutions that are known to not adhere to fair lending practices, which are still plaguing our members and our communities.

“We need to lead not just in orthodoxy but in orthopraxy by being light in the midst of a society that is obsessed with the accumulation of this world’s goods of perishable product at the expense of the least of these.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Navy officials are investigating complaints about the placement of a Bible in a public display about POW/MIAs at the U.S. Naval Hospital Okinawa, the service’s largest overseas medical facility.

The investigation, opened April 6, follows the filing of a complaint by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit established to promote religious freedom in the U.S. military.

The complaint was brought on behalf of 26 military families on the Japanese island of Okinawa, the majority of them Christian, according to the foundation. They hold that the religiosity of the display violates the Constitution, in particular the First Amendment clause that prohibits government establishment of religion.

The complaint notes the Bible is part of “an official, command-endorsed display” and is “endorsing Christianity … to the total exclusion of any other belief systems or non-belief systems.”

Foundation president Mikey Weinstein said he also was concerned about a placard on the display, in Japanese and English, which read in part, “The Bible represents the strength gained through faith to sustain those lost from our country, founded one nation under God.”

A Bible and similar language were suggested in the Navy’s official blog in 2014 for display tables honoring prisoners of war and military members missing in action. But Weinstein said the placard’s wording and its translation into Japanese amounts to evangelization.

“We’re having our lawyers look at whether or not this violates the Status of Forces Agreement, or the treaty we have with Japan,” he said. “Christianity gets no special treatment in the eyes of the law.”

But Mark Stephensen, vice chairman of the National League of POW/MIA Families, disagrees, saying there was “no bias intended” in placing a Bible on a “Missing Man” table.

“The Bible was always intended to be there,” said Stephensen, of Boise, Idaho. “The POWs held in Hanoi vehemently turned to God for comfort and safety and persistence.”

The remains of Stephensen’s father, U.S. Air Force Col. Mark Stephensen, were returned from Vietnam 21 years after the aircraft he was piloting went down.

“I don’t see where the harm is,” Stephensen added. “If somebody’s going to take offense to it, they’re making a conscious effort to be offended.”

Asked about the POW/MIA group’s position, Weinstein said the American Legion does not require a Bible at its “Missing Man” displays, though some legion posts suggest its inclusion.

LYNCHBURG, Va. (RNS)—When Tony Campolo began his altar call in Lynchburg, he embellished his spiritual charge in a way not often heard in evangelical services.

“Are you ready to say, ‘I’m going to commit myself to Jesus?’” Campolo asked as many rose to their feet, some closing their eyes and raising their hands in prayer, “I’m going to be committed to the poor? I’m going to stand up for the refugee? I’m going to speak for those who feel oppressed by our society?”

Campolo, a leader of the Red Letter Christians advocacy group, knew his audience would appreciate that call, made April 7 at the Red Letter Revival, a two-day gathering organized by progressive evangelical leaders near the campus of evangelical Liberty University.

In Lynchburg, they aimed not only to fellowship and to reaffirm their values, but also to serve as a thorn in the side of those who promote a conservative brand of their faith that has given unquestioning support to President Trump. More than 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for the president.

Pray against ‘toxic evangelicalism’

They organized to pray against “toxic evangelicalism” and to offer a spiritual challenge to Liberty President Jerry Falwell Jr., whose steadfast support of Trump has drawn fierce criticism from some other people of faith.

Compared to other evangelical conferences that often boast larger numbers, the revival was small. Roughly 300 to 350 people crowded into the E.C. Glass High School auditorium.

But those who sang and prayed said they appreciated how the gathering was framed as an alternative to the theology of Falwell.

One of the speakers, evangelical author Jonathan Martin, was escorted off Liberty’s campus by police in October while attending a concert days after calling for a peaceful protest of the school. In the months leading up to the revival, Martin referred to Falwell’s leadership style as “authoritarianism.”

Speaker William Barber said Falwell is “justifying the GOP’s immorality” in the “same way” slaveholders used the Bible to justify slavery.

“I came to announce tonight that I am a theological conservative,” Barber said. He chided right-wing religious leaders and their support for policies he says hurt the poor, saying, “they call themselves conservative, but they liberally resist so much of God’s character.”

Sermons at the revival included lengthy discussions of political topics, such as sexuality, white supremacy and mass incarceration.

Others railed against conservative pro-gun arguments.

“Some evangelicals are more committed to the amendments than the commandments,” said David Anderson, a Maryland pastor, triggering a chorus of amens.

Platform for underrepresented voices in evangelical circles

For many in attendance, the speaker and workshop lineup itself functioned as a de facto critique of white evangelical Protestantism, featuring voices often underrepresented in evangelical circles—women, Native Americans, African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.

Lisa Sharon Harper, who was among the faith leaders who protested white supremacists during the violent demonstrations last year in Charlottesville, said the focus on race and marginalized voices wasn’t a coincidence.

“Evangelicals continue to champion (President Trump), and the clearest manifestation of that is Jerry Falwell Jr.’s support for the president,” she said in an interview. “There is no way that we can look at his presidency and not see the manipulation of the political construct of race in order to secure the supremacy of whiteness, and that itself is an assault on the image of God.”

Despite the rhetoric against Falwell, author and revival organizer Shane Claiborne insisted the Red Letter Revival was not designed to “vilify” him, saying, “We’re not here to protest, we’re here to pro-testify!”

Campolo also drew a distinction between religious disagreement and personal attacks, noting Jesus’ disciples often had heated disputes. He pointed to his own televised debates with Jerry Falwell Jr.’s father as proof that theological sparring partners can disagree respectfully.

Falwell Jr. has taken a hard line with the group’s leaders but remained mostly quiet about the weekend’s events. He has not replied to the group’s request for a formal debate, they say, and personally stifled efforts by the Liberty student newspaper to cover the revival, according to a student editor.

According to Claiborne, Liberty police also sent him a letter last week threatening fines and jail time if he visited the Liberty campus to pray with students or Falwell, which Claiborne says he requested in advance.

Claiborne said these reactions were disappointing, but they strengthened Red Letter Christians’ argument.

“What Dr. Martin Luther King talked about is that sometimes we’ve got to expose injustice so that it becomes uncomfortable,” Claiborne said, noting they ultimately hand-delivered prayers for Falwell to his brother’s nearby church. “I think discomfort can be a good thing. Our goal is certainly not to antagonize, not to manipulate, not to be inauthentic. But our goal is to expose some of this stuff.”

Feeling frustrated and alienated

Highlighting tensions may prove to be an overarching strategy of the group, which holds little sway in more mainstream evangelical circles. Organizers say they may hold a similar gathering later this year in Dallas.

Many at the revival expressed frustration with modern evangelicalism, sometimes detailing a feeling of alienation.

“They’re placing the priority on the wrong things,” said Chris Miller, who drove 12 hours from Bluffs, Ill., with a friend to attend the event and used to work in an evangelical church.

The revival, by contrast, was widely seen as refreshing among the progressive crowd.

“I think we’re celebrating a new movement, and I’m very happy about it,” said Marianne, a Lynchburg resident who did not share her last name.

Participants said it’s still too soon to say whether the revival was a success, or what success even looks like.

“Ask me in a year,” Claiborne said. “It’s not about a moment. It’s about a movement.”