WASHINGTON—Removal of language from the Senate tax bill that would have allowed churches to engage in partisan politics without losing their tax-exempt status represents a victory for religious liberty, advocates of church-state separation insisted.

The parliamentarian of the U.S. Senate ruled that language undercutting the Johnson Amendment—a 63-year-old provision in the tax code that bars not-for-profit religious organizations from making political endorsements—would violate the Byrd Rule, which requires elements of the tax bill to pertain to the budget.

“This is a big win for churches, synagogues, mosques, all other 501(c)(3) non-profits and the people who rely on them as a vital part of our society,” said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

On multiple occasions in recent months, Tyler noted religious leaders are free to speak to public policy issues, but she insisted most ministers recognize endorsement of candidates would split their congregations.

“All clergy can—and do—speak out on the great moral issues of the day, but encouraging houses of worship to intervene in campaigns with tax-deductible offerings would fundamentally change them,” she said earlier. “Churches are not political action committees, nor should they be.”

The Baptist Joint Committee was among leaders of the Faith Voices coalition that urged Congress to retain the Johnson Amendment. More than 4,000 faith leaders from across the country signed a letter to Congress opposing any efforts to weaken the measure, which they insisted protects churches and other houses of worship from partisan politics.

The Johnson Amendment “has broad public support, including from faith leaders, charitable non-profits, Republicans and evangelical Christians,” said Maggie Garrett, legislative director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“The Johnson Amendment allows tax-exempt organizations to fulfill their missions by speaking out on social and political issues. At the same time, it protects them from the corrosive influence of partisan politics by ensuring they don’t endorse or oppose candidates for public office.”

Tyler asserted the language weakening the Johnson Amendment was “stuck into a huge tax bill on the fast track in the hopes that those most affected wouldn’t notice” or make their views known.

“Fortunately, as more Americans learned of the proposal and its likely impact, they raised their voices—calling and writing their representatives and senators, sharing concerns with their neighbors through local and social media, and joining thousands of faith leaders at Faith-Voices.org,” she said.

“Now all those committed to protecting the independence and nonpartisanship of our 501(c)(3) sector need to stay alert for other attempts to change the law.”

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Texas case involving a city that extended benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.

The court unanimously chose not to reconsider Houston’s appeal of a Texas Supreme Court decision, allowing a lawsuit to proceed that seeks to block the city from providing spousal benefits to married same-sex municipal employees.

Jack Pidgeon, pastor of West Houston Christian Center, and accountant Larry Hicks sued the city four years ago after former Mayor Annise Parker extended employee benefits to same-sex spouses of city workers.

Pidgeon and Hicks asserted the city was spending “significant public funds on an illegal activity.” At the time, the Texas Family Code explicitly barred “any marriage between persons of the same sex,” and the Texas Constitution included an amendment approved in 2005 that specifies marriage in the state “shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.”

A trial court denied pleas by the city and its mayor and issued a temporary injunction prohibiting them from furnishing the benefits, but while the case was working its way through the appeals process, the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage.

“Equal recognition of same-sex marriage requires more than a marriage license; it requires equal access to the constellation of benefits that the state has linked to marriage,” attorneys for city of Houston argued.

The court of appeals reversed the temporary injunction. However, the Texas Supreme Court decided the Obergefell v. Hodges did not address the specific issues addressed in the Houston matter, reversed the appeal court’s judgment and sent the case back to trial court.

Lawsuit returns to state level

Attorney Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, who represented Pidgeon and Hicks, called the U.S. Supreme Court’s action “an incredible early Christmas present” for Texans.

“This victory means our lawsuit can now move forward at the state level, where the case belongs. … Our one-of-a-kind case may be America’s last hope to keep the egregious Obergefell same-sex marriage ruling from being greatly expanded,” he said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also applauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to review the Texas case.

“We’re pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the Texas Supreme Court ruling that the right to a marriage license does not entitle same-sex couples to employee benefits at the expense of Texas taxpayers,” Paxton said. “The city of Houston’s former mayor illegally extended those benefits while the traditional Texas definition of marriage was still in full force.”

While the legal outcome of the Houston case awaits a state trial court decision, Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, expressed concern about the political impact the Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case will have—particularly in Texas.

“Politicians who are openly hostile to treating everyone equally under the law will now redouble their efforts to render the Supreme Court’s landmark marriage ruling almost meaningless for same-sex couples,” she said.

“After turning bathrooms into a political battleground, they will now wage a mean-spirited, scorched-earth campaign to rob families they don’t like of the security that everyone else gets from marriage. This just condemns us to a renewed culture war battle over marriage and equality and makes Texas look out of step with the rest of the country.”

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Dec. 5 in the case of a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission deals with a commercial baker and cake decorator with a religious objection to same-sex marriage. Jack Phillips refused to create a decorated cake for the wedding reception of a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins. Phillips insisted he should be granted an exemption to Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act based on his sincerely held religious views about marriage.

Some court observers pointed to Justice Anthony Kennedy as the potential deciding vote on a closely divided court. During the oral argument, which lasted nearly an hour and a half, Kennedy voiced concerns a ruling on the baker’s behalf could allow businesses to display signs saying they deny services to same-sex couples. But he also said Colorado had been “neither tolerant nor respectful” of Phillips’ religious convictions.

Conflict with conscience

In a public statement issued following the oral arguments, Phillips insisted he serves “people from all walks of life,” but he could not in good conscience design a cake celebrating a view of marriage contrary to his religious beliefs.

“Though I serve everyone who comes into my shop, like many other creative professionals, I don’t create custom designs for events or messages that conflict with my conscience,” he said.

“I don’t create cakes that celebrate Halloween, promote sexual or anti-American themes, or disparage people, including individuals who identify as LGBT. For me, it’s never about the person making the request. It’s about the message the person wants the cake to communicate.

“I am here at the Supreme Court today because I respectfully declined to create a custom cake that would celebrate a view of marriage in direct conflict with my faith’s core teachings on marriage.”

During the five-year legal battle that followed his action, Phillips pointed to the hardships he and his family endured.

“There have been tears and many difficult days for us,” he said. “We have faced death threats and harassment. I’ve had to stop creating the wedding art that I love, which means we’ve lost much of our business—so much so that we are now struggling to pay our bills and keep the shop afloat.

“It’s hard to believe that the government is forcing me to choose between providing for my family and employees and violating my relationship to God. That is not freedom. That is not tolerance.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who had filed a friend-of-the court brief with the Supreme Court in support of Phillips’ case as part of a multi-state coalition, insisted First Amendment rights are at stake.

“This is a landmark case,” Paxton said. “If courts allow the government to violate our first liberties of religious freedom and freedom of speech, no other liberty is safe.”

Opposing views

Baptist groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs taking opposing positions on the case.

In early September, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission filed a brief arguing the “free exercise of religion in secular vocations in the marketplace should be no less protected than sacred vocations” and asserting the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act imposes a constitutionally prohibited religious test for cake designers by compelling them to design custom cakes celebrating same-sex marriages.

“No American should have to satisfy a government official that he holds the ‘right’ beliefs to keep his business or practice his profession,” the ERLC brief states.

On the other hand, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty joined a brief filed in October arguing the Colorado law “strikes the right balance between respect for religious liberty and the protection of individuals’ right to participate in the commercial marketplace free from discrimination.”

The brief asserts Colorado’s public accommodations law protects religious liberty by preventing people from being turned away by a business or denied commercial services on the basis of their religion.

Nobody should doubt the sincerity of baker’s religious objection to designing the cake for a same-sex wedding reception, said Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee.

“But the assertion of a faith-based objection cannot be enough to justify an exemption from a nondiscrimination law. Such a rule would put religious liberty at greater risk,” Hollman said.

“No customer should fear being denied goods or services by a business that is open to the public simply because of the business owner’s religious views. While this case involves a same-sex couple, the baker’s free exercise argument would open the door to rejections of interracial or interfaith couples by all kinds of businesses.”

In a pluralistic society, protection of religious liberty demands “a delicate balance,” she added.

“The Colorado statute strikes an appropriate balance by ensuring access to the commercial marketplace without unlawful discrimination,” she said, noting churches and other institutions principally used for religious purposes are not affected by the law.

“It is essential to protect all of our churches and their members’ diverse religious beliefs about marriage while—at the same time—recognizing as citizens and Christians that we should treat all equally and without regard to religious differences in the commercial marketplace,” she said.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Churches, synagogues, mosques and other faith-based community centers damaged in a natural disaster could be eligible for federal disaster relief funds under a measure approved by a congressional committee.

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act, also known as H.R. 4460, was approved Nov. 30 by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and will next move to the House floor for deliberation.

The bill received strong support from both sides of the aisle, despite objections that using taxpayer funds to rebuild houses of worship would violate the separation of church and state. Proponents of the measure argue religious groups, which often are at the forefront of disaster relief efforts, are being unfairly disadvantaged.

First Amendment issues, however, were not brought up at the committee hearing. Instead, the discussion focused on other aspects of the bill, such as requirements for competitive bidding after a $300 million contract was given to a tiny Montana firm to repair Puerto Rico’s electricity infrastructure damaged in September by Hurricane Maria.

The bill is being considered in the wake of a particularly destructive hurricane season that saw storms ravage Puerto Rico, Florida and the Texas coastline, and wildfires in October that swept across Northern California, where damage costs soar above $1 billion.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court announced Nov. 27 it would not hear a case challenging a Tarrant County school district’s practice that allows students to lead public prayers at school board meetings.

For 20 years, the Birdville Independent School District has allowed two students to speak at the beginning of its school board meetings. One student leads the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags, and the other offers a brief statement—sometimes a poem or inspirational quote but often a prayer.

Until February 2015, the board called the student-led presentations “invocations,” and the district selected students on merit. In March 2015, the district began referring to them as “student expressions” and began randomly selecting students from a list of volunteers.

The American Humanist Association filed suit two years ago against the district on behalf of 2014 Birdville High School graduate Isaiah Smith. He insisted the school board’s practice of beginning its meetings with student-led prayers made him feel uncomfortable because he believed the district was “favoring religion over nonreligion.”

Circuit court decision stands

In March, the New Orleans-based 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Smith’s assertion the district’s policy violated the First Amendment, ruling the student-led prayers fit within an exception to the Establishment Clause that allows legislative and deliberative bodies to conduct prayers in government buildings.

The circuit court noted the school board is a deliberative body, and most individuals who attend its meetings are adults, although some students attend to receive awards for academic or extracurricular achievement or for musical performances.

“Although it is possible to imagine a school-board student-expression practice that offends the Establishment Clause, this one, under its specific facts, does not,” the circuit court ruled.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty had joined with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Anti-Defamation League, the Central Conference for American Rabbis and others in filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the circuit court asserting the Birdville school district practice constituted school-sponsored religious exercises.

“Public schools have a responsibility to protect the religious liberty rights of all students at all school-sponsored events, including school board meetings,” said Holly Hollman, general counsel with the Baptist Joint Committee.

“The Birdville ISD school board and the 5th Circuit are failing to respect the importance of voluntary prayer and the separation of church and state. Government entities have no business acting as worship leaders for public school children.”

By denying a review of the case, the Supreme Court allows the 5^th Circuit Court’s ruling to stand.

District feels ‘vindicated’

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, insisted the Supreme Court, by denying the petition for a hearing, was allowing an “unfair and inappropriate practice to continue.”

Speckhardt insisted the court disregarded “the serious coercion students face when a prayer is recited in a school-controlled environment with teachers and administrators watching and participating.”

Hours after the Supreme Court announced it declined to hear the case, Superintendent Darrell Brown of the Birdville schools issued a statement saying his district was “vindicated” by the judicial system.

“The speeches given by students at the board meetings are their own—not something they are told to say,” Brown said. “Occasionally, students will open the meeting with a prayer. We believe the students have the right to express themselves in this manner if they choose.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The U.S. State Department failed to release a list of the world’s worst violators of religious freedom by a Nov. 13 deadline, even though Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said religious freedom is a “human rights priority” for the Trump administration.

In December, lawmakers passed a law mandating the State Department name those “Countries of Particular Concern” within 90 days of releasing its International Religious Freedom report. That report came out Aug. 15.

Delay signal U.S. is ‘looking away’

The State Department’s delay bothers some religious freedom watchdogs, including members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent, bipartisan body set up by Congress in 1998 to monitor the issue.

“Failing to designate CPCs tells the violators of religious freedom around the world that the United States is looking away,” said Daniel Mark, chair of the commission.

The Countries of Particular Concern are a list of nations that violate religious freedom in a “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” way, according to the commission.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom must provide its own list of recommended Countries of Particular Concern to the State Department by May 1, according to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The department does not always include all of the commission’s recommendations on its list—the one to which world leaders pay more careful attention.

In April, the commission recommended 16 countries as Countries of Particular Concern, including North Korea, China and, for the first time in the history of the list, Russia. The commission noted in its report that in 2016, Russia has passed a new law “effectively criminalizing all private religious speech not sanctioned by the state,” all but banned Jehovah’s Witnesses and tried Muslims “on fabricated charges of terrorism and extremism.”

Watchdogs had hoped the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act passed last year would prod the State Department to release its list sooner, “but they did miss the deadline,” Mark said.  

List could include terrorist entities

The act, named for the Republican former congressman who made international religious freedom one of his signature issues, also requires the White House, for the first time this year, to name “Entities of Particular Concern,” in addition to Countries of Particular Concern. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended that list include the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the Taliban and al-Shabab.

That new requirement may be what’s holding up the State Department’s list: The White House has not yet delegated authority to the State Department to name Entities of Particular Concern, as it has with the Countries of Particular Concern. That’s what Ambassador Michael Kozak, senior adviser to the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, said during a briefing on religious freedom streamed on the U.S. Helsinki Commission’s Facebook page.

“People like to think this is due to some titanic bureaucratic battle going on, but it tends to be more mundane stuff,” Kozak said.

A State Department official said in a Nov. 17 email that those designations would be released soon and reiterated religious freedom is a priority to the Trump administration. The official did not comment on why the list was delayed.

There has not been much reaction to the missed deadline, Mark said, as few Americans, even those concerned about religious freedom, are aware of the new law aiming to get the Countries of Particular Concern list released faster.

“I suspect it’s also balanced by the fact that the administration has been doing good things (on the issue). There is some leeway and benefit of the doubt being given,” said Mark, who was appointed to the commission by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

But, the chairman added, “I think if we get to the end of 2017 and this hasn’t been done, I think people will be disappointed and frustrated and will begin to worry if there’s something problematic going on in the background.”

WASHINGTON—Students can win money for college by writing an essay discussing whether public school calendars should accommodate religious holidays.

The Religious Liberty Essay Scholarship Contest, sponsored by the Religious Liberty Council of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, engages high school juniors and seniors in church-state issues by directing them to express a point of view on a religious liberty topic.

To enter, students must write a 800- to 1,200-word essay in response to this prompt: “In most public high schools, certain days are marked as religious holidays on the school calendar, and the schools are closed on those days. As public schools become more diverse, some students’ religious holy day(s) are not days that the schools are closed, resulting in absences for those students. In an essay, discuss whether public school calendars should accommodate religious holidays.”

Student writers are urged to consider how school administrators should determine if, or which, religious holy days are included in the school calendar, or if any school policies should be changed to better accommodate students’ religious exercise.

Students should develop a point of view on the issue and demonstrate critical thinking, using appropriate examples, arguments and other evidence to support their position, including identifying how the First Amendment supports their view. Any high school student graduating in 2018 or 2019 is eligible to enter the contest.

The grand prize is a $2,000 scholarship and a trip for two to Washington, D.C. Prizes of $1,000 for the second place winner and $500 for the third place winner also are available.

Essays will be evaluated by a panel of religious liberty advocates and will be judged on the depth of their content, the mastery of the topic and the skill with which they are written.

Entries must be mailed and postmarked by March 9, 2018. Winners will be announced by the end of summer 2018, and the grand prizewinner will be recognized at the BJC board meeting in Washington, D.C., in October 2018.

For entry forms and complete contest rules, click here.

For more information, contact Charles Watson, BJC education and outreach specialist, at (202) 544-4226 or cwatson@BJConline.org.

CHARLESTON, S.C. (RNS)—In the wake of the shooting massacre at a Texas church, Pastor Eric S.C. Manning has visited members of his own congregation—Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church—to see how they are coping with rekindled memories and ongoing grief.

Manning, who became pastor of the Charleston, S.C., church about a year after nine people were killed by a gunman during a Bible study by a white supremacist, has picked up the phone this year to call a Tennessee church and a Canadian mosque that suffered their own attacks. He also planned to offer a “ministry of presence” by visiting members of First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs.

He talked about how things have changed—new security and a new counseling center —for his church members and how they’ve stayed the same—the church doors remain open to members and visitors. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

How did you learn about the shootings at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, and what was your first reaction?

We were watching television in the afternoon and saw breaking news that something had taken place in Texas at a church. We began to pray for the congregation there because we understand what it means to have evil show up in the church and commit a heinous act.

Is Mother Emanuel AME planning to reach out to that congregation in any way?

Yes, we plan on trying to get out there either next week or the following week, just to show our support and aid in anything that we can possibly do with and for them. The only thing that I can really guarantee is just bringing a ministry of presence to be with them to show solidarity and that they are not alone. One thing that we have learned is that when trauma happens sometimes those who have gone through it are able to provide a little bit more of an encouragement.

The situations seem to be both similar and different as far as what has unfortunately happened to your two churches: People were killed when they were coming together to pray and worship but the perpetrators seem to have had different motives. Does that matter at all as you reach out to this church?

That really does not matter. Though the motives may be different the result is the same: You have now two congregations who have gone through a tremendous amount of hatred and evil within their sacred spaces.

How are the members of your church coping with this news, which could be bringing back very, very difficult memories?

It is, of course, bringing up memories and exposing old wounds that we thought may have been healed throughout the process of time. It’s thrust several members back into that June 17, 2015, time when everything was kind of just moving very rapidly and having a lot of people experience the sheer raw emotions of having their church violated and having their ministerial staff and loved ones murdered within the sacred walls of the church.

How has your church offered counseling to them?

Mother Emanuel is blessed to have a partnership with MUSC (Medical University of South Carolina) in Charleston. And we have an empowerment center that’s staffed by clinicians from MUSC and they are able to come and to receive any type of help that they may need from a therapeutic or clinical perspective.

What has it been like for church members to walk back into a site of such tragedy?

I’ve only been serving Mother Emanuel for about a year and a half. Every day we do return to what is a crime scene, and there are days when it is mentally challenging to come through the doors, but through God’s perseverance, he continues to give us the strength that we need to endure. Sometimes the staff may give me a call and say, “Pastor, I just don’t feel up to coming in” and, of course, I understand.

Is there a way to sum up how your congregation was doing before the news of this Texas attack?

We were just continuing on healing and continuing on worshipping and being there for one another and welcoming as many guests or guest worshippers who wanted to come worship with us. There wasn’t a return to normalcy but our new normal we were quite OK with.

Were there specific things that the congregants tried to do to reclaim their church space as their own after the 2015 tragedy?

Reclaiming the church space is an interesting question: The space was never actually forfeited. Mother Emanuel has experienced tragedy before in its history—never, of course, like this. But the church is a place that has a history of resilience, a history of determination and perseverance.

So, the way that we, if you use the term “reclaim the space,” just that following Sunday was immediately opening the doors of the church and worshipping. That began the reclaiming of it. We weren’t going to let evil have the final word. We weren’t going to let the enemy stop the momentum of doing what God has called us all to do.

What kind of security changes has Mother Emanuel made after June 17, 2015?

We have uniformed officers in our worship service and in our Bible study and we also have a security team and we have cameras.

Incidents like these prompt some churches to contemplate getting training for security, arming their members or having armed guards. What do you advise?

Each church will have to handle or answer that question themselves. We can’t just say, “Here, this is the one size fits all.”

There are some people across the country who may be thinking now, after attending church regularly, that maybe they should consider staying home and perhaps listen to services online, on TV or on the radio. What would you say to them?

I would say to them, “Do not let the enemy have the victory.” I understand that people would be apprehensive and for a season they may not return. We experienced the same thing at Mother Emanuel but through the process of time God has continued to touch various members so that they feel comfortable coming back to worship.

Do you feel there has been any sense of healing since the attack on your church, or do you think that healing can ever come?

Healing takes time. Every member is in a different space, the same way that every member wasn’t able to immediately forgive. We just have to take one day at a time. And for those who are struggling, it is not for us to make them feel as if they are lesser a Christian or that their faith is weaker. We must also be patient and wait for their complete healing and restoration to come. But it will come.

FLORESVILLE (RNS)—Vice President Mike Pence traveled to Sutherland Springs to offer prayers and words of comfort to a stricken community three days after a lone gunman killed more than two dozen people during a Sunday morning church service.

The memorial service was held Nov. 8 on a high school football field in neighboring Floresville, about 13 miles from the site of the massacre at First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. The service was replete with Bible readings and prayers. It offered few political points and no mention of guns, mental illness or domestic violence.

Pence said he was inspired by the strong convictions of the people of Sutherland Springs and especially the victims of its historic church, and he expressed his solidarity with their faith.

Off to the side of the stadium, a section was reserved for victims’ families, and it was to them that much of the prayers and words were addressed.

“Faith is stronger than evil,” Pence reassured the families. “Faith is the antidote to fear and despair.”

Thousands of people responded with shouts of “Yeah!” and “Amen!”

‘This evil must come to an end’

Earlier in the day, Pence visited the hospital where many survivors were treated and met with the families of the victims. He also spoke briefly to reporters outside First Baptist Church, cordoned off with yellow tape.

“This evil must come to an end in our land,” he said, citing “bureaucratic failures” that allowed the shooter, Devin Patrick Kelley, to buy multiple weapons, including the Ruger AR-556 rifle he used at the church, despite having been admitted to a psychiatric hospital while he was in the Air Force.

Federal law prohibits gun possession by anyone who “has been committed to any mental institution.”

Kelley was also charged with assaulting his wife and stepson.

The Air Force and the Department of Defense are conducting reviews, Pence said.

“We will find out why this information was not reported in 2012, and we will work to make sure it never happens again,” he said.

God never gave up

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott introduced Pence. Abbott offered his own testimony of turning to God after an accident severed a vertebra in his spine and left him in a wheelchair.

“I questioned God, but you know who didn’t give up on me? God,” Abbott said. “God brought me all the way forward.”

Floresville’s Bernard Cenney, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who came to the service to pay his respects, said the faith emphasis was a natural part of small-town Texas culture.

“Belief in God is really, really big here and it transcends going to church,” Cenney said. “There’s this wholesome belief in God and in something greater than us.”

Closing his speech, Pence invited his wife, Karen, to offer a prayer.

“We’re a family that believes in prayer,” she said. “Lord, thank you for being here with us right now.”

Some dissent

Asking for prayers in the wake of a mass shooting has become as expected as thunder after lightning. But outside Texas, there were some signs of dissent.

Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from Southern California, walked out during a moment of silence held on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for the Texas shooting victims.

“I’ve been to too many moments of silences. Just in my short career in Congress, three of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history have occurred. I will not be silent,” Lieu said via Facebook Live. “What we need is we need action, we need to pass gun safety legislation now.”

Still, studies show communal grief rituals, like prayer vigils and moments of silence, can be crucial to the grieving process. A 2014 study by Harvard researchers showed such rituals can help people deal with negative feelings after a loss or tragedy.

“Since people who have suffered some kind of loss often feel as if their lives are out of control, using rituals can help restore that feeling of control and, in turn, make it easier for them to cope with grief,” Romeo Vitelli, a psychologist who specializes in post-traumatic stress disorder, wrote of the study in Psychology Today. “While rituals can vary widely, the underlying principle of restoring a sense of control is usually the same.”

WASHINGTON—The tax-reform package U.S. House of Representative leaders released Nov. 2 includes a measure that would weaken the Johnson Amendment—a provision in the tax code that bars churches from endorsing political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

The tax proposal drew criticism from advocates for separation of church and state, who insisted the measure would politicize houses of worship.

‘Deform, not reform’

“This tax bill will deform, not reform, the tax law that protects our houses of worship,” said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

“Gutting the law that protects 501(c)(3) (tax-exempt not-for-profit) organizations from candidates pressing for endorsements threatens to destroy our congregations from within over disagreements on partisan campaigns.”

The Johnson Amendment protects the freedom of ministers to “speak truth to power and preach on moral issues, no matter how controversial,” Tyler added.

“Pastors and people of faith know that there’s nothing free about a pulpit that is bought and paid for by political campaign donations or beholden to partisan interests,” she said.

In August, more than 4,000 faith leaders signed a letter urging Congress to maintain the Johnson Amendment.

The proposed change in the tax law “has been pushed by a tiny minority and is opposed by the vast majority of Americans and churchgoers, across party lines and faith traditions,” Tyler said.

‘This is bad policy’

The Trump Administration and House leaders are “trying to change the tax code so they can pressure churches for endorsements,” said Maggie Garrett, legislative director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“They very clearly want to use congregations as political tools for their own benefit,” Garrett said.

“This flies in the face of the American promise of separation of church and state, and it’s blatantly unconstitutional. … This is bad policy. It’s bad for churches, and it’s bad for American taxpayers who will potentially see their money going to support partisan political operations being run out of church basements. This will further divide Americans in spaces that are specifically meant to bring them together.”

Kathryn Freeman, director of public policy for Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission, also expressed concern about diluting the Johnson Amendment, noting ministers already are free to “give their congregations biblical insights into public policy and ethical issues.”

“But I am worried that this is just an attempt to politicize our places of worship and to sow division and mistrust at a time when our nation needs Christ-followers to speak prophetically in the public square, while also demonstrating Christ’s love and concern for all, no matter their political affiliation,” Freeman said.

In addition, Freeman also expressed concern about cuts to the adoption tax credit in the House tax-reform proposal.

“As pro-life advocates know, adoption is an important and critical alternative to abortion,” she said.

WASHINGTON—Does a Christian baker have the First Amendment right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? It depends on which Baptists you ask.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Dec. 5 regarding Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case centers on a Colorado commercial baker with a religious objection to same-sex marriage who refused to create and sell a decorated cake to a gay couple for their wedding reception. The baker asserts his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage should afford him an exemption to Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act.

The court will rule whether applying the state’s public accommodations law to compel the baker to design a cake for an event that celebrates a union contrary to his religious beliefs violates the free speech or free exercises clauses of the First Amendment.

Baptist groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs taking opposing positions on the case.

Free exercise of religion in the marketplace

The Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission filed a brief Sept. 7—along with the Christian Life Commission of the Missouri Baptist Convention and others—arguing the “free exercise of religion by secular vocations in the marketplace should be no less protected than sacred vocations in the ministry,” citing the Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.

The brief argues the Colorado law “imposes a constitutionally forbidden de facto religious test for cake artists that compels them to design custom wedding cakes celebrating same-sex marriage despite religious objections.”

The brief asserts application of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to the baker “revives an oppressive practice condemned by the Constitution—the application of legal compulsion to force a person to express and affirm ideas or belief antithetical to his religious faith as a condition of pursing his occupation.”

“No American should have to satisfy a government official that he holds the ‘right’ beliefs to keep his business or practice his profession,” the brief states.

Colorado law ‘strikes the right balance’

In contrast, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ and others jointly filed a brief with the Supreme Court Oct. 30 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.”

“There may be more challenging cases, including in the context of same-sex marriage,” in which the parties filing the brief “might differ on whether a religious exemption is warranted, but this is not such a case,” it states.

The brief notes the law in question “applies to commercial activities alone and expressly excludes houses of worship from its reach.” It also insists marriage has “both a religious and a nonreligious, civil component.”

In the case before the court, the same-sex couple sought to purchase a cake for a reception “long after and far from where their wedding ceremony took place,” and the baker was not being required to participate in a religious ceremony contrary to his beliefs, the brief notes.

“Religious officials cannot be required to conduct wedding ceremonies outside their religious traditions, and a lay person cannot be required to participate in a religious ceremony, including a religious wedding ceremony, that conflicts with the person’s religious faith,” the brief states.

“In such circumstances, exemptions to secular laws would be warranted. But an exemption is not warranted under these facts. Respecting petitioners’ interest in their sincerely held religious views regarding marriage does not require granting them the right to deny service in the commercial marketplace to couples in connection with the civil or nonreligious aspects of their marriages.”

The brief asserts the public accommodations law actually protects religious liberty, because it prevents people from being turned away from a commercial establishment or denied services on the basis of their religious identity.

“Free exercise law provides many protections for the religious beliefs and actions of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons,” said Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee.

“But it does not provide a right for commercial vendors to refuse to sell goods and services to certain people in violation of a nondiscrimination law by simply asserting a faith-based reason.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Conservative African-American clergy accused LGBT activists of hijacking the civil rights movement and launched a campaign to support a Colorado baker who refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding.

William Avon Keen, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Virginia, told reporters the civil rights movement’s efforts to gain equal facilities for schooling and health care do not equate with a gay couple’s wedding cake request.

“We had to fight for equal treatment because of the color of our skin,” he said, standing with other black clergy at a news conference held outside the Supreme Court. “Christians should not be forced to support sin.”

‘We Got Your Back, Jack’

The “We Got Your Back, Jack” campaign’s message is that the African-American civil rights struggle and LGBT rights are not comparable, adding to the fierce debate surrounding the case scheduled to be heard by the court on Dec. 5.

One of the images in the campaign depicts “white” and “colored” water fountains along with an “LGBT” rainbow-colored bubbler—all topped with the words, “One of these never happened.”

Dean Nelson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, said the aim of the campaign is the “support of Jack Phillips and all people of faith and conscience who simply want to live their lives, who simply want the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

“The government exists to protect those who have diverse opinions and viewpoints, not to punish them,” added Nelson, who also is a senior fellow for African-American affairs at the Family Research Council.

The high court case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, stems from a request in 2012 by David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a Denver gay couple, who wanted a wedding cake from Phillips’ shop. Phillips, the owner, refused, saying baking such a cake would violate his deeply held Christian beliefs.

The couple filed discrimination charges against him and won before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and in the state courts.

‘Trivializes racial discrimination’

The clergy were joined by staffers from Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council Action, advocacy groups siding with Phillips, as well as Janet Boynes, founder of a Minneapolis-based ministry that offers “spiritual guidance for those who choose to walk away from homosexuality.”

Boynes also objected to activists’ efforts to equate the civil rights and gay rights movements.

“I resent having my race compared to what other people do in bed,” she said. “There is no comparison. It only trivializes racial discrimination.”

Reached after the press conference, Cedric Harmon, executive director of Many Voices—a pro-LGBTQ black church movement—rejected the campaign’s premise.

“As a believer myself and a Christian, I don’t believe that anyone in business should be using their religious beliefs to discriminate against any member of one marginalized community because to do so would open the door to discriminate against all other marginalized communities,” he said.