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.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—April 29 marked the end of that artificial construct between politics and media known as the “first 100 days.” While both sides agree the period is essentially meaningless in terms of predicting the eventual success of a presidency, neither is willing to ignore it.

One thing is clear so far: White evangelical Christians, who helped put President Trump in the White House and who will be affected by many of his policies—both promised and delivered—remain his staunchest allies.

Three-fourths of them approve of his actions to date, according to the Pew Research Center. That is nearly twice as high as the president’s approval rating among the general public, which hovers just below 40 percent.

So here’s a look at Trump’s accomplishments in his first 100 days in office as they relate to religion and people of faith. They range from matters of foreign policy to questions of who should pay for playground equipment. And more policies that affect religion are likely on the way.

The “Johnson Amendment”

Candidate Trump pledged to repeal a 1954 law that prohibits religious institutions from campaigning for political candidates. President Trump placed that promise front and center in one of his first official appearances.

“I will get rid of, totally destroy, the ‘Johnson Amendment’ and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear,” Trump told 3,500 faith leaders, politicians and global dignitaries at his first National Prayer Breakfast Feb. 2. “I will do that, remember.”

Conservative faith-based groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, cheered. Others wanted nothing to do with politics in the pulpit; about 100 faith-based organizations, including Jewish and Baptist groups such as the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, sent a letter to Congress urging it to keep the amendment.

A repeal of the amendment may be included in the administration’s tax package. If it is, look for a fight.

Immigration and refugees

As a candidate, Trump called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. As a newly minted president, he signed an executive order temporarily suspending entry of refugees to the country, halting the entry of Syrian refugees entirely and restricting travel by residents of several predominantly Muslim countries.

The order also gave priority to refugees claiming religious persecution, which Trump promised in an interview with Christian media would reward “persecuted Christian” refugees.

Some faith-based religious liberty groups were ecstatic. Many have long insisted Christians are among the most persecuted religious groups in the world—a claim many others dispute. Other religious groups that work with refugees were thrown into chaos. World Relief announced layoffs and the closing of several offices, as did Church World Service.

Judges blocked that first order—and a second one issued March 6—on the grounds, partly, that it discriminated on the basis of religion. The Trump administration is appealing the rulings.

Regardless of the legality of the travel ban orders, the administration’s clampdown on immigration is having the intended effect. Arrests by immigration agents this year are up by about a third, to 21,362 according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And border agents report apprehensions are way down.

“Last month was the lowest month for immigration illegally into our country in 17 years,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said last week. “That is a remarkable thing to accomplish.”

Missteps with the Jewish community

In January, the new administration raised eyebrows when its official statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day failed to mention the Jews.

Then came further missteps: The president, under pressure to denounce anti-Semitism after several white supremacist groups and leaders endorsed him, did so only belatedly; Press Secretary Sean Spicer wrongly asserted Hitler never used chemical weapons in his “Holocaust centers”; Sebastian Gorka, a Trump aide and close associate of Senior Adviser Steve Bannon, came under scrutiny for his ties to anti-Semitic groups.

But recently, at an observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day held in the Capitol rotunda, Trump seemed to hit the reset button.

“Two out of every three Jews in Europe were murdered in the genocide,” Trump said in his remarks to Holocaust survivors and dignitaries. “Those who deny the Holocaust are an accomplice to this horrible evil. And we’ll never be silent—we just won’t—we will never, ever be silent in the face of evil again.”

Controversy over schools chief

When Trump picked Betsy DeVos as education secretary, many religious conservatives cheered. DeVos—a Michigan billionaire businesswoman and Christian evangelical—is a proponent of school vouchers, which would send public money to private schools, including religious ones.

DeVos said of herself and her husband, “Our desire is to … confront the culture in which we all live today in ways which will continue to advance God’s kingdom, not to stay in our own safe territories,” meaning Christian schools.

When that 2001 statement before a conservative Christian audience surfaced in her confirmation hearings, many Christians took sides. Some alumni of Calvin College, where DeVos went to school, praised her choice; others signed a petition outlining their opposition.

But Trump’s proposed budget has cuts for multiple public school programs that mainly benefit lower-income students, while DeVos, who was confirmed, has focused on revamping—critics say re-scrambling—the government loan servicing for student loans.

Supreme Court pick

When Neil Gorsuch became an associate justice April 17, he fulfilled the president’s promise to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia. Michael Farris, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization, said Gorsuch would “affirm our most fundamental freedom—religious liberty.”

Farris’ prediction was tested in Gorsuch’s first week, when justices heard oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer. The case centers on whether the state may provide funds to a religious organization through a grant for playground equipment.

But its implications are vast. A ruling in favor of Trinity Lutheran could lead to government funding of religious schools through school voucher programs, which Trump favors.

Based on his lower-court record, court-watchers predict Gorsuch will favor Trinity Lutheran. Adam Feldman, a postdoctoral fellow at Columbia Law School, told The New Republic Gorsuch has frequently taken a “loose approach” to church-state separation to find “ways that things don’t violate the Establishment Clause.”

During oral arguments, Gorsuch described the case as one of “discrimination on the basis of status of religion. We know that’s happened in this case, right?”

A decision is expected in late June.

Advancing abortion restrictions

One of Trump’s first actions as president was to reinstate the Reagan-era “Mexico City policy” prohibiting the use of American foreign aid by overseas health care providers that include abortion as a family planning option.

The move was seen as a reward to conservative religious groups. The Susan B. Anthony List made the reinstatement of the Mexico City policy one of its six “pro-life accomplishments made by the Trump Administration in the first 100 days.”

Also on the list are the “strong pro-life appointments to key positions,” such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway and Gorsuch.

Meanwhile, the administration continues to signal its support of voters who oppose abortion. In January, Vice President Mike Pence addressed the March for Life in Washington, D.C., the highest administration official ever to appear at the annual event.

“Evangelicals are particularly important to Trump,” said John Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron in Ohio. “On two issues—abortion and the Supreme Court—he made some pretty strong promises during the campaign, and at least so far, he has kept them.”

Proposed religious liberty order

One of Trump’s main campaign promises—and one many religious leaders rallied around—was to “restore” religious liberty. Many pundits considered this a political “dog whistle”—a signal to Trump’s conservative Christian base that he would scale back Obama-era protections for LGBTQ Americans.

In recent days, 51 Republican lawmakers urged the president to sign an executive order that would do just that, according to USA Today. They want the president to roll back workplace protections for LGBTQ workers, eliminate the contraceptive mandate requiring religious organizations to provide birth control in their health insurance plans and repeal the “Johnson Amendment,” among other things.

More than 400 religious leaders sent the president a letter in early February asking him not to sign a similar executive order then in the works. The president did not, and recently, a White House official told USA Today, “Some sort of policy to protect religious liberty is still in the works, but … the president is trying to find middle ground.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The U.S. Department of Defense announced a near doubling of its list of recognized religions. Now it formally will recognize humanism and other minority faiths among members of the armed forces.

The move, put into place at the end of March but made public in late April, means servicemen and women who are adherents of small faith groups now are guaranteed the same rights, privileges and protections granted to their peers who are members of larger faith groups.

The move was lauded by humanist organizations, which have been pushing 10 years for full recognition, including their own chaplains.

“Beyond humanism, the new listing is a win for diversity in general,” said Jason Torpy, president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. “There have been prior declarations that the government or the military has recognized humanism in one way or another, but this is different.”

Humanism was recognized by the Army in 2014, but this new order expands that to all branches of the military.

Military now recognizes 221 faith groups

Previously, the U.S. military recognized just over 100 religions. The new list has grown to 221 to include the earth-based faiths, such as heathens and Asatru, and an additional eight Protestant groups, including the International Communion of the Charismatic Christian Church.

Jewish servicemen and women now may choose among Orthodox, Conservative and Reform instead of just “Jewish.”

Josh Heath, co-director of the Open Halls Project, which works to support heathens and other earth-based faiths in the military, said the newly recognized groups now will find it easier to get their holidays off, travel off-base to religious services or keep special religious items in the barracks.

“If you run into any miscommunication about your religious needs, you can say this is my official religious preference and be accommodated,” he said.

Heath hopes it will make it easier for military heathens to find each other and form on-base communities.

Provide more accurate accounting

Also, the Department of Defense will now have more accurate counts of each recognized religious group, which varies widely depending on who’s counting.

The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers asserts more than 22 percent of service personnel identify as “no religious preference,” and slightly more than 1 percent identify as “atheist” or “agnostic.” In 2010, the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute estimated humanists make up 3.6 percent of the U.S. military.

The new policy has its detractors. Writing for Reporter, the official newspaper of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Roger Drinnon said a “heavily secularized military culture, stemming from ongoing atheist activism and LGBT advocacy,” has led to “an environment where restrictions and even punitive actions reportedly are being imposed on chaplains, commanders and lower ranks who seek to serve without compromising their religious faith.”

WASHINGTON—Missouri acted properly in denying public funds to a Lutheran church that wanted the state to pay for improvements to its playground, an attorney with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty insisted.

Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee, filed a friend-of the-court brief in the case of Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer. 

“This case is about whether the state has to pay for the property improvements of a church, despite nearly 200 years of precedent and many practical considerations that argue otherwise,” Hollman said.

Grant sought for improvements to child learning center playground

The case centers on a Missouri congregation that sought funds for its child learning center from a state program that awards a limited number of grants for playground improvements.

Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee, offers public statements urging the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court ruling that Missouri rightly denied a Lutheran church access to a state grant to renovate its playground. (BJC Photo)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.” 

“Missouri has drawn the right line to protect against the government funding of religious exercise,” Hollman said, noting the constitutional prohibition on state aid to churches is a protection of religious liberty drawn from hard-learned historical lessons. 

“Baptists and other religious dissenters in colonial America fought to ensure that the coercive power of the government was not used to force taxpayers to pay for churches,” she said. “The result has been a rich flowering of religion and religious institutions, funded by voluntary gifts and offerings.”

Church claims discrimination based on religion

The church—represented by Alliance Defending Freedom—argued it 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 safety of all children matters, whether they attend a religious school or a nonreligious school,” said David Cortman, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom. “The state of Missouri denied the Trinity Lutheran Child Learning Center’s access to a public program that would have made their playground safer—and did so on the basis of religious status, a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.”

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. 

“Missouri’s express discrimination against religion should be declared unconstitutional,” the brief said.

The case “is about maintaining that long-held American principle that state neutrality toward religion does not mean state hostility toward religious people,” ERLC President Russell Moore said. 

‘A necessary protection for religious liberty’

Hollman rejected the idea the state discriminated against the church center by denying it access to the grant.

“Though there are many ways that religion and government cooperate, it is a fundamental principle of religious liberty in this country that the government does not fund religious exercise. Churches are, by definition, expressions of religion—organized for religious exercise,” she insisted. “That’s why churches are, and should be, given special treatment. It is a necessary protection for religious liberty, not a mark of hostility or discrimination against religion.

“Religion has a special place in our constitutional tradition, a place that is protected by separating the institutions of religion and government. The U.S. Supreme Court has never upheld direct government grants to churches, much less required a state to provide such funding.”

WASHINGTON—A broad-based religious coalition urged Congress to reject calls for repeal of the Johnson Amendment, insisting current tax laws protect houses of worship and religious nonprofit organizations from political pressure and dangers that accompany endorsing or opposing candidates.

The geographically diverse coalition of 99 organizations—including Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and other faith traditions—sent a letter to House and Senate leaders saying the current tax code safeguards “the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system.” 

“A broad section of America’s faith community is delivering a message loud and clear today: We don’t want and we don’t need a change in the tax law to pursue our mission,” said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

“As soon as the church joins at the hip with a particular candidate or party, its prophetic witness—its ability to speak truth to power and not risk being co-opted by the government—is hindered.” 



In addition to the Baptist Joint Committee, other groups that endorsed the letter included the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, the Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Baptist Women in Ministry, Texas Baptists Committed, the Baptist General Association of Virginia, the Alliance of Baptists and various state and regional CBF groups.

The groups are united against calls to repeal or change the Johnson Amendment, a provision in the tax code that applies to all 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit organizations. Groups that choose the most-favored tax status must refrain from endorsing, opposing or financially supporting political candidates.



“The prohibition on partisan politics has strengthened the autonomy and religious freedom of houses of worship and people of faith,” said Jonah Dov Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

“Separation of church and state means that in this country—in ways too rare elsewhere—people of all religious traditions have the ability to follow the teachings of their scripture. We strongly oppose any effort to undermine or repeal this crucial legal protection that makes our nation stronger.”



The letter, addressed to leaders of both parties and of the committees dealing with tax law, reminds Congress that houses of worship already can speak to issues, and leaders can endorse or oppose candidates in their personal capacity.

“Current law simply limits groups from being both a tax-exempt ministry and a partisan political entity,” the letter states.



“Most pastors know that endorsing candidates would divide their diverse congregations, distract from their core purpose, and dilute their message,” Tyler said. “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. Churches are not political action committees, nor should they be.”



Polls consistently show vast majorities of Americans and members of the clergy do not want tax-exempt nonprofits engaging in political campaigns. Most recently, Independent Sector’s March 2017 research revealed 72 percent of all Americans want to keep the current law. 

Based on reporting by Cherilyn Crowe of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty