WASHINGTON (RNS)—Christians made up the majority of refugees admitted to the United States in the first five full months of the Trump administration, reversing a trend that saw Muslims entering the country at higher numbers under President Obama, a new Pew Research report shows.

Out of all the refugees who arrived between President Trump’s inauguration and June 30, about half were Christians and 38 percent were Muslims, Pew reported.

But when monthly figures are viewed, the data—originally from the U.S. State Department—reveals a steady decline for Muslims, from about 50 percent of refugees in February to 31 percent in June.

This comes at a time when the origin of most of the world’s refugees continues to be Muslim-majority countries. According to the U.N. Refugee Agency, Syria continues to account for a significant proportion of newly displaced refugees, with more than half of all new refugees worldwide fleeing the conflict in that country. Afghanistan and Somalia also top the list.

Not so in America.

“As whole, we look at fiscal 2017 since October, and Muslims and Christians are about the same number,” said Phillip Connor, a co-writer of the report. “But seeing the shift month to month was somewhat surprising. … It is a growing increase. It’s not just that there was an immediate shift.”

Causes of change difficult to identify

In the wake of Trump’s executive orders restricting travel to the United States from seven—and under the revised travel ban, six—Muslim-majority countries, the report said, “the religious affiliation of refugees has come under scrutiny.”

Yet the specific cause of this year’s changes can’t be fully explained.

Some refugees now arriving on U.S. shores likely applied for resettlement when Obama was still in office.

Muslim refugees to the United States outnumbered Christians only three times between 2002 and 2016—in 2005, 2006 and 2016, which saw a record number of Muslims (38,901).

Refugees’ countries of origin have changed

Of the top six countries of origin for U.S. refugees, three—Iraq, Somalia and Syria—are Muslim-majority. But beginning in April, that changed. Now, only Iraq remains among the top six nations, in addition to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burma, Ukraine, Bhutan and Eritrea.

Refugee admissions to the United States in fiscal 2017, which ends Sept. 30, are on pace to fall below the 85,000-person ceiling established by the Obama administration for fiscal 2016, the report said.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court ruled states sometimes must make public funds available to religious organizations, a decision some Baptists hailed as a victory for religious freedom and others saw as chipping away at the wall of separation between church and state that protects religious liberty.

In a 7-2 decision in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the court ruled Missouri acted improperly when it denied public funds to a Lutheran church that sought assistance from a state program providing grants for playground improvements. 

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said excluding Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit—for which it otherwise qualified—solely because of its religious character “is odious to our constitution.”

However, Roberts sought to limit the sweep of the opinion by adding a footnote: “This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, insisting the ruling “profoundly changes” the relationship between church and state by insisting the government is obligated to provide public funds to a congregation.

The Missouri constitution states, “No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion.” 

ERLC applauds decision

Last year, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission filed a brief in opposition to the lower court rulings that upheld Missouri’s decision to deny the state grant to the church-based daycare. 

“The case matters because the court here recognizes the difference between a government establishing a religion and a government choosing not to penalize a religion,” ERLC President Russell Moore wrote in an online article after the court issued its ruling.

Moore called the ruling “a win for religious freedom and for limits on the power of the state.”

Court ‘upends precedent,’ Baptist Joint Committee says

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, on the other hand, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the constitutional prohibition on state aid to churches.

In ruling against the Missouri prohibition on state aid to churches, the high court rejected “an important aspect of America’s history of protecting religious liberty,” said Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee.

“By treating a state ban on aid to churches as a mark of discrimination, the court’s decision upends precedent and adds confusion to the law,” Hollman said.

“While claiming to stand up for churches, the court ignores their distinct nature as centers of religious exercise. ‘No aid’ provisions reflect the hard-fought battles of Baptists and other religious dissenters that abolished government controls over religion and secured church autonomy.  

“The decision does not create a free exercise right to government funding of religion, but it unnecessarily blurs the line that ensures religion flourishes on its own.”

Varied views on ‘common sense’

The Alliance Defending Freedom represented Trinity Lutheran, arguing the church should be eligible for the state grant because the playground materials are secular, and the congregation operates a preschool open to children in its area, regardless of their religious affiliation.

“The government should treat children’s safety at religious schools the same as it does at nonreligious schools,” said David Cortman, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. “The Supreme Court’s decision today affirms that common-sense principle and the larger truth that government isn’t being neutral when it treats religious organizations worse than everyone else.

“Equal treatment of a religious organization in a program that provides only secular benefits, like a partial reimbursement grant for playground surfacing, isn’t a government endorsement of religion. As the Supreme Court rightly found, unequal treatment that singles out a preschool for exclusion from such a program simply because a church runs the school is clearly unconstitutional.”

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in contrast, insisted the ruling “undermines the bedrock principle that no American should be forced to support a religion against his or her will.”

“The religious freedom protections enshrined in state constitutions are worth more than resurfacing a playground,” Lynn said. “Taxpayer-funded religion is bad for churches, communities and citizens. … This ruling threatens to open the door to more taxpayer support for religion, which is at odds with our history, traditions and common sense.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—No U.S. religious group possesses a majority who think it’s acceptable for businesspeople to invoke their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays.

This finding from a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute survey is a first, said Robert P. Jones, CEO of the nonprofit research group.

In a 2015 PRRI survey that asked the same question, more than half of white evangelical Protestants and Mormons approved of businesspeople who cited religious belief to deny service to LGBT customers.

But in the new 2016 survey, only 50 percent of white evangelical Protestants expressed such approval, as opposed to 56 percent the year before.

Mormons showed the second-highest rates of approval. About 42 percent of Mormons backed businesspeople who deny services in the latest survey, as opposed to the 58 percent who favored them the previous year.

Shifting views

But these two conservatively minded religious groups weren’t the only ones to shift their views about bakers, for example, who won’t make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding.

The percentage of white mainline Protestants who approved of businesspeople who withhold services to gay people dropped to 30 percent in the recent poll, down from 37 percent in 2015.

Overall in 2016, twice as many Americans disapproved than approved of those who refuse service to a gay person based on religious beliefs—61 percent to 30 percent.

PRRI’s findings corroborate a more dramatic overall shift in attitudes about same-sex marriage and LBGT Americans in the past decade.

Most religious groups today support same-sex marriage, Jones noted, adding, “The religious groups in which majorities oppose same-sex marriage make up less than 20 percent of the public.”

Still an issue

And although conservative religious groups have effectively ended their political campaigns against gay marriage since the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing it, the question of whether people can legally use their religious convictions to refuse service to LGBT Americans remains an issue.

In statehouses across the country, lawmakers, voicing concerns about the erosion of religious liberty, continue to introduce bills to allow businesspeople and professionals—from florists to pharmacists—to deny service to gay people based on religious beliefs.

One such bill signed into law by Vice President Mike Pence when he was governor of Indiana was later amended after an outcry from citizens and businesses who called it anti-gay and threatened to boycott the state.

While white evangelical Protestants show the highest levels of approval for those who deny services to gay people for religious regions, Unitarian-Universalists show the lowest rate—8 percent.

The PRRI poll, which asked about 40,000 people this particular question, has a margin of error of plus or minus less than 1 percentage point for Americans overall, and higher margins of error for particular religious groups.

Washington, D.C.—The country’s religious congregations will have to add $714,000 to their annual budgets each year for the next decade to make up for the cuts found in President Trump’s 2018 federal budget proposal, according to Bread for the World.  

“There is no way our country’s 350,000 religious congregations can make up for the cuts in the services that help hungry, poor and other vulnerable people,” said David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World. “Congress should not justify budget cuts by saying that churches and charities can pick up the slack. They cannot.”

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated more than half—or $2.5 trillion over 10 years—of the Trump administration’s proposed fiscal year 2018 cuts will come from programs that help low- and moderate-income Americans.   

“President Trump has proposed a budget that includes the largest cuts ever to programs assisting struggling American families,” Beckmann said. “The healthcare cuts and the fiscal year 2018 budget cuts—both of which are being negotiated in Congress—are a double whammy for America’s struggling families.”

Bread for the World estimates the healthcare cuts alone under the American Health Care Act will take away $2,000 a year in healthcare services from every man, woman and child in or near poverty for the next 10 years.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Evangelical Christian leaders are spearheading a campaign for criminal justice reform, calling for equitable punishment, alternatives to incarceration and a different take on the “tough on crime” language of the Trump administration.

“Our country’s overreliance on incarceration fails to make us safer or to restore people and communities who have been harmed,” said James Ackerman, CEO of Prison Fellowship Ministries, at a news conference at the National Press Club.

Joined by black, white and Hispanic officials of evangelical organizations, he introduced the “Justice Declaration” that has been signed by almost 100 religious leaders from a wide range of Christian denominations.

“The church has both the unique ability and unparalleled capacity to confront the staggering crisis of crime and incarceration in America,” the declaration reads, “and to respond with restorative solutions for communities, victims and individuals responsible for crime.”

The leaders later presented their declaration to Republican leaders, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, in hopes of gaining bipartisan support for changes in federal law.

“A big mistake”

In a May memorandum to federal prosecutors, Attorney General Jeff Sessions established a stricter policy on charges and sentencing, saying they “should charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offense” and consider using mandatory minimum sentences.

Ackerman said Prison Fellowship supports sentencing guidelines but thinks mandatory sentences are “a big mistake.”

He was joined at the news conference by leaders with testimonies of how churches helped formerly incarcerated people rehabilitate themselves and become productive citizens.

Dimas Salaberrios, president of the Concerts of Prayer Greater New York, told of how church members once vouched to a judge about his transformation after he escaped from authorities when he was a drug dealer. The judge pardoned him.

“I’m living proof that when you grab somebody out of the pits of hell and you turn their life around, that they can be great contributors to society,” he said.

Address racial inequities

National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson challenged churches to do more than sign the declaration but also to take action steps to address racial inequities and work for alternatives, such as drug courts and mental health courts, to keep people out of prison.

Thirteen percent of Americans are African-American, but close to 40 percent of U.S. prisoners are black.

“What if all of our churches were to adopt one incarcerated person?” he asked. “What if all of our churches would service one family where a family member is incarcerated? What if all of our churches would care for one victim?”

The declaration, and a related 11-page paper on how the church can respond to crime and incarceration, were spearheaded by evangelical organizations—Prison Fellowship, the NAE, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and the Colson Center for Christian Worldview.

But signatories on the declaration include a wider range of Christian leaders, such as Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, Bread for the World President David Beckmann and Bishop Frank Dewane, who chairs the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

“Make an example …”

Despite the unified voices, a new Barna Group poll commissioned by Prison Fellowship found that 53 percent of practicing Christians—Christians who have attended a church service at least once in the past month and describe their faith as very important—agree with the statement: “It’s important to make an example out of someone for certain crimes, even if it means giving them a more severe punishment than their crime deserves.”

Restorative justice proponents said the finding indicates they have more work to do.

“We as a church are not recognizing that disproportional punishment—that is, giving someone more than they deserve—is not consistent with our values and certainly will not help us advance the hope of a restorative justice system we all seek,” Ackerman said.

CHARLESTON, S.C.—The two-year anniversary of a white supremacist’s killing of nine black people at a Bible study was a day when “pain and hope and treachery and triumph, awful and awesome, come together,” Joel Gregory told hundreds gathered for an ecumenical service of remembrance.

Gregory, holder of the George W. Truett Chair of Preaching and Evangelism at Baylor University’s Truett Seminary, spoke at an anniversary memorial service for victims who were murdered at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C., June 17, 2015.

Truett Seminary’s Joel Gregory (right) visits with a South Carolina pastor while in Charleston to observe the second anniversary of the murder of the “Emanuel Nine.” (Photo by Todd Still / Truett Seminary)Gregory urged victims’ families, survivors, community members and dignitaries to follow the biblical exhortation: “Abhor that which is evil and cling to that which is good.”

“I know that there are nine families where every Christmas witnesses an empty chair, every Easter listens for a voice that will never be heard, and hands will reach out to grasp a hand that will never be held again,” Gregory said.

“Yet for the rest of us who do not have such intimate, daily recurring reminders, we must join in solidarity to stop and remember. If we do not, we rob the departed of their dignity and minimize the magnitude of the malicious and malignant act that took them.”

The person who only hates evil degenerates into “a cynical, negative, sour, embittered shell who finally sees evil only,” Gregory said. “On the other hand, those persons whose naïve eyes only see the bright pastels of good deny the very reason for the gospel. We need redemption.”

Gregory reminded those at the service to remember the Passover meal embedded in Judaism, which looks back to the pain of slavery, but “it looks forward in its ringing climax, ‘Next year in Jerusalem.’ It is thus pain and hope together.”

“Even so also, the Lord’s Supper, the meal celebrated by millions weekly all over the planet,” Gregory said. “It looks back at pain, the very death on the Cross. But it looks forward in hope to the time we will eat it together with Jesus anew in the kingdom. In the heart of faith is a memory-keeping meal that joins together pain and hope, the awful of the past and the awesome of the promise.

“So also, this memorial is both pain and hope, and it must be that way.”

On June 17, 2015, “good people were gathered in God’s holy house to study God’s holy word,” Gregory said. “In all of Charleston, there was not more goodness than the goodness in that room. Into that room walked with forethought, intention and premeditation a perpetrator who joined in that righteous circle of biblical discussion. A different race, he was welcomed, seated, encouraged, and embraced.

“As painful as it is, we cannot honor and dignify the Emanuel Nine without recognizing that disturbing fact.”

But the perpetrator—Dylann Roof, now in prison after he was convicted of hate crimes—does not have the center stage he wanted, Gregory said.

“His very existence is a shadow that is cast by the light of the luminous goodness of the nine shining, lustrous, luminescent souls so quickly taken,” he said.

Forgiveness for that is not easy, he acknowledged

“This day, I cannot conceive of directing someone to forgive who has experienced a pain I have never experienced. For that matter, what I think I should do is far from what I would do,” he said.

But he implored listeners to hold onto what is good even as they despise the evil.

“The tragedy of 2015 did not close Mother Emanuel. The massacre in its hall did not silence the praise of God. The vileness of demonic hate did not shatter the beautiful windows of its storied sanctuary. The falling of the Emanuel Nine did not empty its pews,” he said. One day, “a child will look at the picture of the Emanuel Nine and will be reminded that the evil done there did not end the good that will be done there.”

For video of Mother Emanuel Unity walk, visit Unity; for coverage of the ecumenical service, visit Remembering. For coverage from WCSC-TV in Charleston, visit Second Anniversary .

RICHARDSON (RNS)—If Muslims have their way, the man with the megaphone said, there will be no justice for America’s goats.

Protesters and counter-protesters assemble outside the Islamic Association of North Texas, a large Muslim education and worship center in Richardson June 10. (RNS photo by Bruce Tomaso)“Why do Muslims rape their goats so much?” Jim Gilles asked his fellow protesters gathered June 10 outside one of the largest Islamic worship centers in the Dallas area. “It’s because they’re perverted, demonic, sex-crazed … sick perverts.”

Such outlandish statements appeared completely plausible to many of the 200 or so participants of the rally held outside the Islamic Association of North Texas in Richardson.

The demonstration was one of about two dozen “Marches against Shariah” organized in cities across the country by ACT for America, a self-styled grass-roots national security organization.

ACT for America labeled a ‘hate group’ by Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups, including neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen and black separatists, considers it to be a hate group. The center says since ACT for America’s founding 10 years ago, it “has grown to become the largest grassroots anti-Muslim group” in the country, with 1,000 local chapters and a claimed membership of 280,000.

It also sponsored anti-Shariah rallies in major cities such as Boston, Chicago, Denver and Seattle. In some places, the protests were met by counter-demonstrations, and in some cases, there were scuffles between two sides. In Manhattan, the counter-rally was significantly larger, the New York Daily News reported.

A small number of counter-protesters, many of whom have friends who worship at the Islamic center, marched in Richardson. Some in the anti-Shariah crowd wore desert fatigues and carried military-style handguns or rifles.

The rhetoric often was rancorous, and tempers seemed to rise with the North Texas heat, but a contingent of Richardson police officers kept the peace by keeping the two groups separated.

Group says it wants to safeguard Western values, protect U.S. from terrorism

ACT for America—the first three letters stand for American Congress for Truth—says its mission is “to protect America from terrorism” and safeguard “the Western values upon which our nation was built.”

Among its initiatives has been to push for passage of state statutes and constitutional amendments—known collectively as “American Laws for American Courts” measures—that would prohibit courts from deciding cases by applying Shariah, a body of Islamic laws and practices derived from the Quran and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad.

Headquartered in Virginia Beach, Va., ACT for America was founded in 2007 by Brigitte Gabriel, a Maronite Christian who was born in Lebanon.

The group steadfastly denies being anti-Muslim. The enemy isn’t Islam, its website says. The enemy is “radical Islam,” which seeks “to destroy our Western way of life.”

But Gabriel, in her writings, in interviews with right-wing publications and in other public pronouncements, has often blurred any line between “good” and “bad” Islam—as did many of her followers in Richardson. Gilles, for example, carried a large placard that said, “Every real Muslim is a Jihadist!”

“Islamic terrorists … are really just very devout followers of Muhammad,” Gabriel wrote in 2006. “They are following his example and doing exactly what the Koran teaches.”

In a 2007 lecture at the Defense Department’s Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., she said a devout Muslim “cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.” In the same lecture, she was reported to have said Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office.

Anti-Shariah rallies denounced by variety of groups

The June 10 demonstrations, scheduled during Islam’s holy month of Ramadan, were denounced by more than 100 religious, community and civil-liberties organizations across the country, including Amnesty International USA, the Anti-Defamation League, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, the Sikh Coalition, the American Friends Service Committee, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the National Council of La Raza.

In a letter to the mayors of host cities, the groups said the demonstrations were “intended to manufacture fear of Muslims” by “disingenuously” raising concerns about Shariah taking root in American courts.

“We are deeply concerned about the type of message that these protests send to the American public and to the good people in your city—that it is acceptable to vilify people simply because of their faith,” the letter said.

Khalid Hamideh, the lawyer and spokesman for the Richardson Islamic center, said “it is absolute nonsense” to suggest Muslims are plotting to set up religious courts in America, substituting the judgment of Shariah for, say, the Bill of Rights or the Kansas Motor Vehicle Code.

Shpendim Nadzaku, the center’s imam and resident scholar, said of the protests: “They are anti-Muslim. Let’s just call a spade a spade.”

However improbable the establishment of Shariah in America may be, ACT for America and allied groups have attracted broad populist support by vowing to stamp out the threat.

In 2015, tea party Republicans cheered Beth Van Duyne, then-mayor of Irving, for fighting to stop a court in her city from imposing Shariah. As it turned out, there was no such court—Van Duyne heard about it through a chain-letter rumor, which proved to be false.

But that didn’t stop her from pushing for passage of an American Laws for American Courts bill in the Texas Legislature. Muslims, she warned, were intent on “bypassing Texas courts, bypassing American courts.”

This spring, after Van Duyne opted not to seek a third term as Irving’s mayor, President Trump selected her as a regional administrator of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, overseeing federal housing programs in Texas and four surrounding states.

WASHINGTON (BP)—Baptist leaders decried Sen. Bernie Sanders’ stated opposition to a White House nominee based on the candidate’s comments about Islam.

Sanders—an independent from Vermont and 2016 candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination—said Russell Vought should not be confirmed as deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Sanders cited a 2016 blog post by Vought in which he said Muslims “stand condemned” because they have rejected Jesus as Savior. Sanders called Vought’s post “hateful” and “Islamaphobic” and added, “It is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.”

He also said Vought “is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”

‘No religious test for public office’

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, described Sanders’ comments as “breathtakingly audacious and shockingly ignorant—both of the Constitution and of basic Christian doctrine.”

“Even if one were to excuse Sen. Sanders for not realizing that all Christians of every age have insisted that faith in Jesus Christ is the only pathway to salvation, it is inconceivable that Sen. Sanders would cite religious beliefs as disqualifying an individual for public office in defiance of the United States Constitution,” Moore said.

“No religious test shall ever be required of those seeking public office. While no one expects Sen. Sanders to be a theologian, we should expect far more from an elected official who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.”

Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, called Sanders’ questioning of Vought’s religious views “a troubling turn.”

“Sanders’ line of questioning imposed a religious test, which is forbidden by Article VI of the Constitution,” Tyler wrote in an article posted June 9 on her agency’s website.

Vought posts blog on Wheaton controversy 

Sanders took exception to comments made in a January 2016 blog post, in which Vought defended his alma mater, Wheaton College, after the Christian school began termination proceedings against a professor who said Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

In the post at The Resurgent website, Vought wrote: “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.” 

Sanders called Vought’s post “indefensible.”

In the hearing, Vought said, “I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles,” according to Associated Press. Vought said his post was intended to defend the actions of Wheaton College and were not anti-Islamic.

“I specifically wrote it with the intention of conveying my viewpoint in a respectful manner that avoided inflammatory rhetoric,” Vought said in a written response to the committee, AP reported.

Distinction between religious exclusivism and political exclusivism

Tyler took issue both with Sanders and with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who asserted Vought’s comments “suggest a violation of the public trust.”

“Giving them both the benefit of the doubt, maybe they confused religious exclusivism with political exclusivism,” Tyler wrote. “That is an extremely unfortunate but understandable mistake, given the current state of our world where political exclusivism is evident both in authoritarian regimes around the globe and in nativist rhetoric and violence, rampant in democratic societies, including our own.”

Sanders “missed an opportunity” to clarify the distinction between religious exclusivism—which is a constitutionally protected belief—and political exclusivism, Tyler said.

“We have seen other recent examples of attempts to declare certain religious beliefs as irreconcilable with American values and therefore legitimate grounds for exclusion,” she wrote. “Part of living in a religiously diverse society is encountering people who have theological views that are opposed, even abhorrent, to us. Our founders created a system through the Constitution and Bill of Rights that provides equal citizenship despite those differences.”

With additional reporting by Managing Editor Ken Camp

WASHINGTON (RNS)—President Donald Trump told an assembly of evangelical Christians he would continue to restore the religious liberty many of them feel they’ve lost.

“It is time to put a stop to the attacks on religion,” Trump said in a speech June 8 to the Faith and Freedom Coalition that began shortly after former FBI Director James Comey questioned the president’s integrity at a Capitol Hill hearing.

“We will end the discrimination against people of faith. Our government will once again celebrate and protect religious freedom,” Trump, a Presbyterian not known to be particularly religious, told more than 1,000 people in a hotel ballroom across town from the hearing.

‘Under siege’

He said he and his audience were “under siege.”

The sentiment resonated with the assembled evangelicals, who often charge that American politics and culture have shunted them aside. Across the divide, other parts of the electorate accuse conservative Christians of using the government to impose their values on others.

So far, Trump’s most loyal supporters seem to care more about his positions on their core issues than on the questions about his leadership raised in Comey’s testimony.

In his remarks, Trump did not directly refer to Comey’s testimony, which riveted much of the nation that morning. But he did—after he read a verse from the book of Isaiah—denounce his political enemies as lying obstructionists.

“Learn to do right, seek justice, defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow,” he said, quoting the biblical verse.

Then he added: “The entrenched interests and failed bitter voices in Washington will do everything in their power to try and stop us from this righteous cause, to try to stop all of you. They will lie, they will obstruct, they will spread their hatred and their prejudice, but we will not back down from doing what is right.

“Because as the Bible tells us, we know the truth will prevail,” he added.

Trump notes achievements

To sustained applause, Trump listed what he had done in his four months as president to help fulfill conservative Christians’ agenda:

• He nominated a Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, whom he described as a worthy successor to conservative hero Antonin Scalia.
• He blocked federal funds for nonprofits that perform abortions abroad.
• He touted his executive order that last month directed the IRS to tread lightly with the federal regulation that bars pastors from politicking in the pulpit.

“The people that you most respect can now feel free to speak to you,” Trump said. “That was a big deal. And it was a very important thing for me to do for you, and we’re not finished yet, believe me.”

“As long as I am president no one is going to stop you from practicing your faith or from preaching what is in your heart,” Trump added.

The legal stricture in question, known as the Johnson Amendment, hardly was enforced, and many pastors—including evangelicals—say they don’t feel it wise to endorse candidates from the pulpit. But some evangelical leaders told Trump abolishing the amendment—only Congress can actually get rid of it—was a priority for them.

Strong evangelical support

White evangelical Christians voted for Trump in November by larger margins than any other religious group—81 percent.

“I want to know, who are the 19 percent?” he quipped, referring to those evangelicals who didn’t vote for him.  “Where did they come from?

“You didn’t let me down, and I will never, ever let you down, you know that,” he promised. “We will always support our evangelical community.”

Trump is president in no small measure because he “focused like a laser beam on winning the support of evangelical voters and people of faith,” Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, told the audience before Trump’s speech.

The coalition is not exclusively evangelical. Some Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Jews dotted the audience for Trump’s address.

But the Faith and Freedom Coalition, which seeks to help elect those who hold conservative values and is meeting in Washington as part of its annual Road to Majority conference, is driven by evangelical Christians.

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; John Hagee, founder of San Antonio’s Cornerstone Church; and Penny Young Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, joined Trump at the event.

Some want more

Although the crowd cheered the president frequently and gave him several standing ovations, at least one Trump voter wanted more from him.

“Everything he had to say was fantastic, but it seemed very scripted, and I was hoping to hear more of something that I couldn’t see on the news or read in the paper,” said Melanie Harris, who works for a Maryland state senator.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a darling of the movement who also sought the presidency last year, spoke before Trump and told those attending to remember they enjoy Republican majorities in the House and Senate, and a Republican in the White House.

Cruz spoke as Americans across the country digested Comey’s testimony, which painted Trump as untrustworthy and disrespectful of the FBI’s independence.

“There’s a lot of noise. There’s a lot of people lighting their hair on fire on cable television,” said Cruz. “Ignore the political circus, and let’s focus on delivering results.”

WASHINGTON (BP)—Shannon Royce, a former leader at the Family Research Council and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has been appointed as the Trump administration’s director of the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Part of the Department of Health and Human Services, the center seeks to forge government partnerships with faith-based and community organizations to address community needs.

During Royce’s tenure, the center’s focus will include combatting opioid addiction, childhood obesity and mental illness, as well as fostering health reform.

Shannon Royce “I am eager to work with our faith and community partners in their service and stewardship to bring help and healing in their communities,” Royce said. “In doing so, I believe our work can help HHS fulfill its mission to enhance and protect the health and wellbeing of all Americans. The faith-based and neighborhood partners are instrumental in addressing community needs and concerns in the work they do every day, serving their members and neighbors and meeting the needs of our most vulnerable citizens.”

Royce, who began her work at the center in May, served as chief of staff and chief operating officer at the Family Research Council from 2015 to 2017. As ERLC director of government relations and legislative counsel from 1999 to 2003, she directed the commission’s Washington office.

Additionally, Royce has served as counsel to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and as executive director of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

The mother of a child with special needs, Royce has worked to raise awareness of mental health issues within the Southern Baptist Convention and beyond, including service on SBC Executive Committee’s Mental Health Advisory Council.

“She has served Southern Baptists in numerous ways in the past,” said Frank Page, president of the Executive Committee. “She was the prime motivator for our mental health advisory group. Her competency and compassion will be used by God in this service to our country.”

Royce received her law degree from George Washington University. She and her husband, Bill, have two adult sons.

Congregational leaders from across the country are being urged to speak out to protect the law that keeps partisan politics out of the nation’s pulpits.

Leaders of churches, synagogues and other houses of worship—clergy and laity alike—can go online to sign a letter opposing efforts to repeal or weaken the so-called Johnson Amendment, which President Donald Trump has said he wants to “destroy.” The 1954 law prohibits congregations and other tax-exempt organizations from directly endorsing or opposing political candidates. But those organizations still can engage in political debate on any issue.

The president’s recent executive order, “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty,” zeroed in on the Johnson Amendment, noted Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

Presidential fixation

“Although the executive order did not clearly change anything from a legal or practical standpoint, it did show President Trump is fixated on this issue,” said Tyler, a leader of a coalition created to preserve the Johnson Amendment and to protect pulpits from partisanship.

That group recruited 99 organizations—from Baptist, to Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and other faith traditions—to send a letter to House and Senate leaders, insisting the current law safeguards “the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system.”

A subset of that group has created a website, “Faith Voices,” which hosts a letter that can be signed by concerned congregational leaders. Like its predecessor, the new letter will be distributed to members of Congress, informing them of the broad-based support for the Johnson Amendment and church-state separation.

“Destroying the Johnson Amendment requires an act of Congress. But we have heard it has been targeted by people working on tax reform, and it might be attached to a spending bill,” Tyler said. “So, now is the time—when people are starting to focus on this issue and congressional action is likely—for people from faith communities to speak up and express their personal concerns.”

Sign and comment

The ecumenical coalition supporting the website and the new protest letter involves the Baptist Joint Committee and at least 10 other groups, including the multi-racial New Baptist Covenant. Visitors to the site can click a link to add their names to the letter. They also may add comments about “what a change in the law would mean to them,” she said.

“This site is for what we call ‘faith leaders,’” Tyler explained. “That’s not just clergy, but also people who consider themselves leaders in their faith community. … As Baptists, we believe in the priesthood of the believer, and so we have all kinds of church leaders. Their voices are important.”

The letter begins: “As a leader in my religious community, I am strongly opposed to any effort to repeal or weaken current law that protects houses of worship from becoming centers of partisan politics. Changing the law would threaten the integrity and independence of houses of worship. We must not allow our sacred spaces to be transformed into spaces used to endorse or oppose political candidates.”

Retain independent voices

The letter also discusses the necessity of retaining independent voices in order for faith communities to maintain their prophetic role in society. It mentions the divisive and detrimental effects that would ensue if congregations become politicized.

“I therefore urge you to oppose any repeal or weakening of the Johnson Amendment, thereby protecting the independence and integrity of houses of worship and other religious organizations in the charitable sector,” the letter concludes.

The option that allows letter signers to describe what a change in the law would mean for them is significant, Tyler said, adding, “Often, these individuals are much more articulate on this issue than their advocates in Washington are.”

National polls say repeal of the Johnson Amendment is unpopular. Repeal would affect not only the presidential and congressional elections, but also “every race on the ballot,” Tyler reported. “It is difficult to think of a congregation that would not be divided if the Johnson Amendment were destroyed.”

To learn more about the letter and to endorse it, click here.

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump marked the National Day of Prayer by signing an executive order supporters called a “first step” to promote religious freedom but church-state separationists criticized as an attempt to turn congregations into partisan political action committees.

In a May 4 Rose Garden ceremony, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Department of the Treasury and “all executive departments and agencies” not to impose any penalty or deny the tax-exempt status of any religious nonprofit organization or house of worship that engages in political speech. 

_________________________________________________________________

See related story:

Editorial: Trump’s executive order upends ‘religious liberty’

_________________________________________________________________

During the presidential campaign and in his first appearance at a National Prayer Breakfast, Trump pledged to “get rid of, totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, the 1954 law that bars houses of worship and other religious not-for-profit organizations from supporting political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status. 

The May 4 executive order also instructs the secretaries of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to “consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections” to Obama administration mandates that required health plans to include birth-control services that critics asserted included abortion-causing drugs.

At the signing ceremony, Trump recognized representatives of the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that challenged the Affordable Care Act mandate that insurance plans cover birth control.

‘First step,’ but Congressional action needed

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, praised Trump’s action in a tweet, saying: “Grateful for executive order’s affirmation of the need to protect religious freedom. Much, much more needed, especially from Congress.”

Similarly, the National Association of Evangelicals issued a statement: “While the executive order is a first step, it does not permanently resolve even the issues it addresses. Anything done by executive order can be undone by a future president. Threats to religious freedom in America need to be addressed through legislative action that protects religious liberty for all Americans.”

Churches as ‘vehicles for political campaigns’

In contrast, Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, voiced concern the executive order could open the door to partisan politicking in churches.

Amanda Tyler “This order appears to be largely a symbolic act, voicing concern for religious liberty but offering nothing to advance it. Worse, it is further evidence that President Trump wants churches to be vehicles for political campaigns,” Tyler said.

“Americans think changing the tax law to encourage churches to endorse and oppose political candidates with tax-deductible contributions is a terrible idea. But some politicians and a few interest groups looking to solidify their political power continue to push it to further their agenda. The vast majority of congregants and clergy from all religious groups oppose candidate endorsements in their houses of worship.”

A recent survey of evangelical leaders conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals showed 89 percent said pastors should not endorse candidates from the pulpit, and a LifeWay Research poll last year revealed 79 percent of Americans said it is inappropriate for ministers to endorse political candidates in worship services. 

Meanwhile, LifeWay Research shows a majority of Americans—52 percent—believe churches that publicly endorse political candidates should not lose their tax-exempt status.

Current law insulates churches from politicians seeking endorsements

“Pastors will continue to speak truth to power and preach on moral issues, no matter how controversial, and they don’t need a change in the tax law to do it,” Tyler added. “But getting rid of the protection in the law that insulates 501(c)(3) (not-for-profit) organizations from candidates pressing for endorsements would destroy our congregations and charities from within over disagreements on partisan campaigns.”

On the same day as the Rose Garden signing ceremony, Tyler submitted a statement to a subcommittee hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee urging no change in the Johnson Amendment.

“The separation between the nonprofit sector—including most houses of worship—and partisan candidate campaign involvement has served to protect the integrity of charities from the messy and often ugly world of partisan campaign. … There are plenty of places in our culture today to engage in partisan electoral campaigns. Most people I know don’t want church to be one of those places,” she said.

One month earlier, the Baptist Joint Committee and 98 other religious organizations sent a letter to House and Senate leaders asking them to reject calls for a repeal of the Johnson Amendment, saying the current tax code safeguards the integrity of both the charitable sector and the campaign finance system. 

Pandering to base, upending protections for churches

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, insisted Trump’s executive order “guts” religious freedom rather than protecting it.

“Exploiting the National Day of Prayer to trample religious freedom highlights Trump’s zeal to substitute showmanship for sincerity,” Lynn said. “Today, the president pandered to his far-right fundamentalist base, upending protections for houses of worship and allowing religion to be used as an excuse to deny women coverage for contraception and other preventive health care.

“Far from protecting religious freedom, this executive order guts that principle. Religious freedom does not mean the right to ignore laws that protect other people and our democracy.”

Johnson amendment ‘not a threat to religious liberty’

Gus Reyes, director of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, noted a commitment to religious liberty is “important to the functioning of a pluralistic society.”

“Rightly applied protections for churches, religious institutions and nonprofits are vital to our ability to faithfully serve our neighbors, parishoners and communities without fear of compromising our religious beliefs,” Reyes said.

“The Johnson Amendment, however, is not a threat to religious liberty. it sets forth limits to political activity for nonprofits, like churches, who want to avoid paying federal taxes. While I wholeheartedly think pastors should speak to current issues in their communities, I caution against turning the pulpit into a place for partisan politics and the endorsement of candidates.

“It is important to recognize the diversity of the body of Christ, including political affiliations. We should remain focused on loving our neighbors and spreading the gospel.”

Falls short of fulfilling campaign promises

The executive order Trump issued differed in some respects from a reported draft version leaked a few days earlier, and the less specific version signed at the Rose Garden ceremony drew criticism from some Religious Right groups.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, insisted the executive order “falls far short of what is needed to protect people of faith from government persecution.” Trump “punted the issue to the Department of Justice” instead of taking decisive action, he asserted.

“Because of President Trump’s failure to directly fulfill his repeated campaign promises, people of faith will continue to be in the crosshairs of the government, forced to choose between abandoning their beliefs or risk facing government persecution and complying with onerous demands of the government,” Brown said.

Michael Farris, president of the Alliance Defending Freedom, also asserted Trump failed to fulfill his campaign promises.

“As we have explained, though we appreciate the spirit of today’s gesture, vague instructions to federal agencies simply leaves them wiggle room to ignore that gesture, regardless of the spirit in which it was intended,” Farris said.

“We strongly encourage the president to see his campaign promise through to completion and to ensure that all Americans—no matter where they live or what their occupation is—enjoy the freedom to peacefully live and work consistent with their convictions without fear of government punishment.”

Editor’s Note: The article was edited after it originally was posted May 4 to include a statement from Gus Reyes, as well as to correct the interpretation of a LifeWay Research poll.