"The Catholic influence in the
world is still large. The 'Holy Alliance' formed om 1980 between the
Vatican and the Reagan administration in the USA, effectively put an end
to the USSR [46]. The current Jesuit pope achieves new PR successes every week or month, and with each further step in European integration the people in the Vatican open a bottle of champagne." - Arjen Nijeboer (1974), Journalist, Political Scientist, and author.
By Derk Jan Eppink, Senior Fellow at London Center for Policy Research Political Analyst, The Brussels Journal. //Wed, 10. Oct 2012
For more than seven years, Dutchman Derk-Jan Eppink
worked behind the scenes of the European Commission in Brussels. As a
cabinet member of commissioners Frits Bolkestein and Siim Kallas, he saw
how what he called "the European mandarins" exercised their power.
With the journalistic experience he had gained earlier at newspapers
like the Dutch NRC Handelsblad and the Belgian De Standaard, Eppink wrote a book about the EU power culture.
INTRIGUE, TRICKERY AND DECEIT -
From the desk of Luc Van Braekel on Sun, 2007-03-25 02:24
Eppink tells how he discovered that the essential thing for a European
official is to learn the procedures. "Because once you know how the
procedures work, you can start to manipulate the process. I arrived in
1984 as a Calvinist, I'm leaving in 2007 as a Jesuit", Eppink said, referring to the differences
between the principle-driven approach of the protestant Dutch and the
devious conspiracies which are sometimes attributed to the catholic
order of the Jesuits.
I digress to note the comment on cranmer.blogspot.ca about the above statement of Eppink concerning the intrigues of the EU,
"But this is the modus operandi of the EU, and the tendency is to ‘get
sucked in’. Indeed, one tends to lose one’s job, or find oneself
indefinitely suspended, if one fails to conform. The Pope's
compatriot, Chancellor Angela Merkel, has made consistent pleas for the
revived Constitution to include references to Christianity. This has
led the Pope’s co-religionists across the Union to once again echo the
call. Italy’s Romano Prodi said he had pushed for inclusion of
'Catholic roots' in the document but that ‘the main task ahead for
Catholics was to carry on a dialogue with religions like Islam and
Judaism’ (Note the supplanting of 'Christian' with 'Catholic', for
therein lies the concern of many Protestants...)"
But that is a mere interjection.
Eppink continues:
"I have learned all the necessary survival techniques to
be a mandarin: intrigue, trickery and deceit. Many politicians in the
Netherlands adhere to the view that intrigue is a very bad thing. But in
fact, it works very well. Let me give you one example. My commissioner
Frits Bolkestein had very strong views on immigration. He never went
along with the line of the Commission to turn the European Union into an
"immigration union". But at a meeting in 2001, it seemed that
Bolkestein had agreed to a decision without knowing what he had agreed
to. Only after the meeting, he found out what the decision meant,
because it was on the front page of the Financial Times:
"European Union = immigration union". Of course, he wanted to get rid
of this decision. He asked: what can I do now? It is now the official
line of the commission to open up Europe to full immigration from
Northern Africa and the Middle East.
I said: the only thing we can do is to start an intrigue! We will have
to ask Ministers of Justice in the member countries to try to undermine
the proposal of the Commission. And that is exactly what we did. Without
informing the Commission - because when you start an intrigue, you
should not leave any traces - we made appointments with Ministers of
Justice in the member countries. At that time, Belgium was the president
of the European Council. So Bolkestein and I made an appointment with
the Belgian minister of Justice, Marc Verwilghen, a very nice man. We
met and we had a good lunch with lots of champagne. We agreed that the
European proposal was totally unrealistic. I asked Verwilghen to try to
get it off the agenda of the Commission and to bury it somewhere in his
office, never to be seen again. And that is exactly what happened. A
few weeks later, 9/11 happened, and public opinion and politicians got a
completely different view on immigration.
This attempt of an
intrigue, I have to admit, worked very well. That is how the European
Commission works: there are procedures, but luckily there are also ways
around the procedures."
There
are plenty of reasons to keep a close eye on Herman van Rompuy, the
President of the European Council. Early September, Van Rompuy spoke to
the 'Interreligious Dialogue' in Florence. The world press did
not notice, but fortunately there was still the 'Katholiek Nieuwsblad'
from Den Bosch, Rome's last resort in the Netherlands. The newspaper
proudly quoted Van Rompuy as announcing: 'We are all Jesuits'. He was
referring to those prominent European leaders with whom he is developing
the architecture for the future Europe. 'It creates unbreakable ties.
So there is a 'Jesuits International''.
Who are those people that Van Rompuy, himself schooled by the Jesuits
at Sint-Jan Berchman College in Brussels, was talking about?
First of
all, there is José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission.
Secondly, there is Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime minister of Luxembourg
and Chairman of the Euro group. Van Rompuy also mentions the President
of the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi, who was schooled in
the Roman Jesuit College Instituto Massimiliano Massimo. The
Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti and his Spanish collegue Mariano
Rajoy have also been shaped by Jesuit colleges, Van Rompuy cheerfully
added. Fortunately there is Angela Merkel, the stubborn daughter of a
vicar from the former DDR, to act as a counterweight.
Listening to Van Rompuy, you will instantly notice the similarities
of the Jesuits with Europe. Jesuits formed the vanguard of the Catholic
Church, like the European elite is the vanguard of the European
integration. Both portray themselves as 'the elite', elevated above the
ordinary people. Their methods are very similar. A sophisticated lie or
purposeful deception is allowed when framed in the interest of the
greater goal. A barely contained cynicism typifies the attitude toward
the normal citizen, the ignorant fool, who within a democracy needs to
be protected from himself. The Catholic and European elites work through
inner circles. The rest is prose. Van Rompuy, Barroso, Monti and Rajoy are frequent visitors at papal audiences.
It is not surprising that this mentality leaves traces in the
European structures and working methods. The ECB has a Governing Council
of twenty three members, among which are the six members of the
Executive Board. The ECB setup is hardly different from the Vatican. The
Governing Council ranks no women, is not accountable to a Parliament
and the minutes of its meetings are classified. The American Federal
Reserve Bank and the Bank of Japan have to publish the minutes from
their board meetings. The ECB plays a central role in the Euro zone,
moving around billions of Euros, but no one knows how the bank in Frankfurt makes decisions. At least the Pope had a butler exposing the
secrets.
Admittedly, Euro Jesuits are intellectually superior. They are way
smarter than Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Liberal fraction in the
European Parliament and his Green counterpart Daniel Cohn-Bendit. In
their book ‘For Europe!’ they scream their goals at the top of their
lungs: a federal Europe with one government, one European tax and one
army. The only thing that is missing is one secret service and one
leader, so Europe is back to where it started. Put this to a referendum
and the ‘United States of Europe’ is limited to Italy and Belgium.
Even sillier is the ‘final report’ of a handful of Ministers of
Foreign Affairs on the future of Europe. The report is signed by eleven
out of the twenty seven Member States; a minority, among them the
Netherlands. The usual suspect, the UK, did not sign and neither did
Sweden or Finland. Of the new Member States, only Poland signed. The
conclusion of the group: ‘The Euro is the most powerful symbol of European integration’.
The many rescue operations and emergency funds are conveniently
ignored. Some amongst the eleven Ministers (it is not clear which ones)
argue in favour of a European army. Such an army will undoubtedly be a paper tiger,
because the armies of the Euro countries are shrinking rapidly as a
result of the crisis. Surprisingly, Greece spends the most on its
military per capita! Yet Greece did not sign. In short, these eleven ministers, like a disoriented soccer team, excel at scoring in their own net.
That is something that would never happen to the Euro Jesuits. Their
report ‘Toward a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ only consists of
‘building blocks’ and ‘suggestions’. The report suggests implementing a
European deposit guarantee scheme. Nothing dramatic of course, it is
just a suggestion. In a painless exercise of words citizens are moulded
into a thinking process that goes beyond them. As soon as they realise
what building those building blocks are meant to create, they are
already trapped in it. What used to be suggestions will be fait accompli and those who object are labelled as unreasonable and fractious, as populists.
Meanwhile, the never elected [Italian] Prime Minister Monti has announced that
he will start a European campaign against ‘populism’. Van Rompuy, also
never elected, immediately gave him his support. Monti had earlier
stated that national parliaments should not get in the way of European
leaders, thereby referring to the German Bundestag. They have to be
‘educated’. Jesuits lead the people, who are in turn supposed to follow.
What is populism to them? It is the ‘ignorent’ who refuses to follow:
the angry Greeks, the protesting Spaniards, the concerned Germans and
the Euro-critical Dutch. A Europe with such an elitist mentality needs a
Reformation, but that is something Jesuits International detests. What an annoying populist he was, that Martin Luther!
Will Trump Abolish the Johnson Amendment and Merge Church and State?
Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty
Issued on:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the
executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with
implications for the religious liberty of persons and organizations in
America, and to further compliance with the Constitution and with
applicable statutes and Presidential Directives, it is hereby ordered as
follows:
Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch
to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious
freedom. The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and
views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious
people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear
of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government. For that
reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the
fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans’ first freedom.
Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations
to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue
interference by the Federal Government. The executive branch will honor
and enforce those protections.
Sec. 2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive
departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent
practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the
freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and
political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the
Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house
of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such
individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political
issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character
has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation
or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition
to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As
used in this section, the term “adverse action” means the imposition of
any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the
disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities
exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United
States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any
tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.
Sec. 3. Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care
Mandate. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended
regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based
objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section
300gg-13(a)(4) of title 42, United States Code.
Sec. 4. Religious Liberty Guidance. In order to guide all agencies
in complying with relevant Federal law, the Attorney General shall, as
appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections
in Federal law.
Sec. 5. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the
application of any provision to any individual or circumstance, is held
to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its
other provisions to any other individuals or circumstances shall not be
affected thereby.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by
any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or
entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Remarks
by President Trump at the National Day of Prayer Event and Signing of
the Executive Order on Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty
Issued on:
Rose Garden
11:39 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everyone. Thank you very much.
(Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much to
Vice President Mike Pence. I am very fortunate to have Mike with me.
He’s a man of very deep faith, I can tell you that, great character and
conviction. And, Mike, thank you very much for making this journey with
me and with all of us. Believe me, it’s been great to have you.
I also want to thank Pastor Jack Graham, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, and
Rabbi Marvin Hier for leading us so beautifully in prayer. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
I also want to mention, as you know, Cardinal DiNardo and all of the
other great faith leaders that we have. I see Franklin Graham. So many
are here. So many great friends. So many great supporters. And we
very much appreciate it. Because we’re a nation of believers.
(Applause.) Faith is deeply embedded into the history of our country,
the spirit of our founding, and the soul of our nation.
It is a beautiful thing to see three faith leaders, from three very
different faith traditions, come together to lift up our nation in
prayer. And it’s great to do it at the White House, isn’t it? Isn’t
that great? (Applause.)
Because not only are we a nation of faith, but we’re a nation of
tolerance. As we look at the violence around the world — and believe
me, it’s violent; I get to see it perhaps better than anybody — we
realize how truly blessed we are to live in a nation that honors the
freedom of worship. Today, my administration is leading by example as
we take historic steps to protect religious liberty in the United States
of America. (Applause.)
We will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied, or
silenced anymore. (Applause.) And we will never, ever stand for
religious discrimination. Never, ever. (Applause.)
Tolerance is the cornerstone of peace. And that is why I am proud to
make a major and historic announcement this morning and to share with
you that my first foreign trip as President of the United States will be
to Saudi Arabia, then Israel, and then to a place that my cardinals
love very much, Rome. (Applause.)
These visits will take place ahead of the NATO and G7 meetings, and
will begin with a truly historic gathering in Saudi Arabia with leaders
from all across the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia is the custodian of the
two holiest sites in Islam, and it is there that we will begin to
construct a new foundation of cooperation and support with our Muslim
allies to combat extremism, terrorism and violence, and to embrace a
more just and hopeful future for young Muslims in their countries.
(Applause.)
Our task is not to dictate to others how to live, but to build a
coalition of friends and partners who share the goal of fighting
terrorism and bringing safety, opportunity and stability to the
war-ravaged Middle East. (Applause.)
We all pray that we can make a difference. We pray for peace. Just
over 150 years ago, President Lincoln called for a National Day of
Prayer — today — after he feared that we were becoming a nation “too
proud to pray to the God that made us.” (Applause.)
Today, we recall President Lincoln’s words as we sign a proclamation
designating today as National Day of Prayer. That’s what we want — a
National Day of Prayer. And it’s so great to be doing it in the Rose
Garden. How beautiful is that? (Applause.) It was looking like you’d
never get here, folks, but you got here. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank
you very much. So true.
And we remember this eternal truth: Freedom is not a gift from
government, freedom is a gift from God. (Applause.) It was Thomas
Jefferson who said, “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty.” Our
Founding Fathers believed that religious liberty was so fundamental that
they enshrined it in the very First Amendment of our great and beloved
Constitution.
Yet for too long, the federal government has used the power of the
state as a weapon against people of faith — bullying and even punishing
Americans for following their religious beliefs. That’s been
happening. That is why I am signing, today, an executive order to
defend the freedom of religion and speech in America — the freedoms that
we’ve wanted, the freedoms that you fought for so long. And we are
doing it in just a little while, right over here. (Applause.) Thank
you. Thank you all. Thank you.
No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the
federal government and the tenets of their faith. As I campaigned
across the country, faith leaders explained that they were prevented
from speaking their minds because of a 1954 rule known as the Johnson
Amendment. I spoke about it a lot. Under this rule, if a pastor,
priest, or imam speaks about issues of public or political importance,
they are threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status — a
crippling financial punishment. Very, very unfair. But no longer.
I promised to take action, if I won. If I didn’t win, I gave you no
promise, that’s for sure. (Laughter.) If I didn’t win, I guess I’d be
gone, right? I’d be out enjoying my life, I think. (Laughter.) But I
wouldn’t be helping you with the Johnson Amendment. And to this end,
this financial threat against the faith community is over. (Applause.)
In just a few moments, I will be signing an executive order to follow
through on that pledge and to prevent the Johnson Amendment from
interfering with your First Amendment rights. And you’re the people I
want to listen to. Other people are allowed to tell me and everybody
what to do. I want to hear it from you and so do a lot of other
people. So you’re now in a position where you can say what you want to
say. And I know you’ll only say good and you’ll say what’s in your
heart. And what’s what we want from you. You are great, great people.
You are great, great people. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you.
This executive order directs the IRS not to unfairly target churches
and religious organizations for political speech. No one should be
censoring sermons or targeting pastors. (Applause.) And I know one
thing — it never stopped Dr. Ben Carson. He said, the heck with the
Johnson Amendment. Right, Ben? I’ve been with Ben, and he did what he
wanted to do. (Laughter.) But not everybody is going to do that, Ben,
you know that, right?
In America, we do not fear people speaking freely from the pulpit —
we embrace it. America has a rich tradition of social change beginning
in our pews and our pulpits. Perhaps there is no greater example than
the historic role of the African-American church as the agent for social
progress, spurring our nation to greater justice and equality. We must
never infringe on the noble tradition of change from the church and
progress from the pew. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you.
Under my administration, free speech does not end at the steps of a
cathedral or a synagogue, or any other house of worship. We are giving
our churches their voices back. We are giving them back in the highest
form. With this executive order, we also make clear that the federal
government will never, ever penalize any person for their protected
religious beliefs. (Applause.)
That is why I am today directing the Department of Justice to develop
new rules to ensure these religious protections are afforded to all
Americans. There are — more than 50 religious Americans and groups sued
the previous — and you’ve seen that — 50 sued the previous
administration for violating their religious freedom.
The abuses were widespread. The abuses were all over. As just one
example, people were forbidden from giving or receiving religious items
at a military hospital where our brave service members were being
treated and where they wanted those religious items. These were great,
great people. These are great soldiers. They wanted those items. They
were precluded from getting them.
And we know all too well the attacks against the Little Sisters of
the Poor — (applause) — incredible nuns who care for the sick, the
elderly and the forgotten. Where are they, by the way? Where are
they? Could you stand, sisters? Stand. Come on up here, sister. Come
on up. Right? (Applause.) Come on up. (Applause.)
Congratulations. They sort of just won a lawsuit. That was pretty
good. (Laughter.) That’s a good way of doing it, huh?
Well, I want you to know that your long ordeal will soon be over.
It’s been a long, hard ordeal. (Applause.) We’ve all been watching.
Some of you have been very much involved. A lot of us have been
watching the news for years
PARTICIPANT: Five years.
THE PRESIDENT: Five years. You had good lawyers?
PARTICIPANT: Excellent.
THE PRESIDENT: Where are your lawyers? Stand up. Come on, stand
up. (Applause.) Good job. Do you mind if I use your lawyers? I could
use some good lawyers too. (Laughter.) Good job. Great job.
With this executive order, we are ending the attacks on your
religious liberty, and we are proudly reaffirming America’s leadership
role as a nation that protects religious freedom for everyone.
(Applause.)
Over 60 years ago, the IRS went after one of the greatest leaders in
history — Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. It is a sobering reminder of
the need for vigilance. The words of Reverend King, and other
religious leaders, have awakened the conscience of millions and millions
of Americans, and inspired us to act in the name of peace, justice,
freedom, and charity. Every president must work to protect — and we
have to do this; we have no choice to do this. We have absolutely no
choice — to protect these hard-fought gains. They have been
hard-fought. They have been fought for so many years, for so many
decades, for so many centuries. And this is a very special day,
perhaps, for that reason.
And that’s why we are here today: To defend the rights of all
Americans; to honor our great Constitution; and to protect the sacred
liberties given to us not by any earthly power, but by our Creator in
heaven. (Applause.)
I’d like to thank all of you great, great religious leaders for being
with us today. We have some of our political leaders. You’re going to
have to — (laughter) — they know, they know. Today is a very big day.
We have a big vote coming up in a little while. And I thought it was
very appropriate that it turned out to be you folks, and then I have to
deal with those politicians. (Laughter.) But they’re good. I will
tell you, they’re good. They work very hard, and hopefully we’re going
to have a wonderful day and a wonderful vote, and we’re going to take
care of a lot of people — great, great people from this country — with
their healthcare and their healthcare needs. And we hope to be able to
do that. And we have all fought very hard to be able to do that.
So I want to say to everybody in attendance and everybody in our
country, and everybody in the world: God bless you, and God bless
America. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.)
This is National Day of Prayer. We like that, don’t we?
(The proclamation is signed.) (Applause.)
So who’s getting this pen, Mr. Vice President? In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King. (Applause.)
This is promoting and the promotion of free speech and religious liberty. That’s a big one. That’s as big as it gets, right?
(The executive order is signed.) (Applause.)
Thank you very much, everybody. Fantastic to have you. We really
appreciate. Very special. These are two very, very special executive
orders, and an honor to have everybody here. Thank you all.
(Applause.)
END
11:59 A.M. EDT
---------------------------------------
PRESIDENT TRUMP PLANS TO END OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!
[ IS THIS THE RUN-UP TO A NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW???? ]
WASHINGTON — President Trump vowed on Thursday
to overturn a law restricting political speech by tax-exempt churches, a
potentially huge victory for the religious right and a gesture to
evangelicals, a voting bloc he attracted to his campaign by promising to
free up their pulpits.
Mr.
Trump said his administration would “totally destroy” the Johnson
Amendment, a 1954 law that prohibits churches from endorsing or opposing
political candidates at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status.
“Freedom
of religion is a sacred right, but it is also a right under threat all
around us,” Mr. Trump told religious leaders at the National Prayer
Breakfast. “That is why I will get rid of and totally destroy the
Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely
and without fear of retribution.”
Repealing
the law would require approval by Congress, which could prove
challenging given that Democrats, and even some Republicans, would
resist what MANY VIEW as an EROSION of the SEPARATION between CHURCH and
STATE.
Still,
Mr. Trump’s promise to repeal the law fulfills a campaign pledge — one
that became a centerpiece of his effort to mollify the religious right,
which was slow to warm to his insurgent candidacy. Eliminating the
measure has been a goal of many social conservatives, who argue that it
unfairly restricts clergy members from expressing themselves by
endorsing, or speaking out against, political candidates.
How Trump Would Corrupt the Pulpit FEB. 2, 2017
Schwarzenegger to Trump: ‘Why Don’t We Switch Jobs?’ FEB. 2, 2017
Trump Pushes Dark View of Islam to Center of U.S. Policy-Making FEB. 1, 2017
Anxiety About Muslim Refugees Is Stoked Online by the Far-Right Media JAN. 28, 2017
Trump’s Black History Talk: From Douglass to Media Bias and Crime FEB. 1, 2017
Many
see government persecution in limits on their official religious
activities at work, and complain that the Internal Revenue Service — an
agency that the right views with a special ire — singles out churches
dominated by Christian conservatives.
It
was one of several checklist items that religious conservative leaders
told Mr. Trump were important to them. And they reacted to his
announcement with delight.
“Americans
don’t need a federal tax agency to be the speech police of churches or
any other nonprofit groups, who have a constitutionally protected
freedom to decide for themselves what they want to say or not say,” said
Erik Stanley, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a
conservative Christian legal defense group that has opposed the Johnson
Amendment.
Tony
Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative
Christian group, called Mr. Trump’s pledge “outstanding — right on
target.”
“Pastors should be held accountable to God alone for what they say behind the pulpit, not the I.R.S.,” he said.
Trump at Prayer Breakfast
President
Trump talked tough on immigration at the National Prayer Breakfast and
veered off message, blasting the ratings of “The Apprentice.”
Many
clergy members, however, say they see no reason to lift the
prohibition, because making political endorsements could divide their
congregations. They say the law in effect shields them from pressure by
advocacy groups and politically active congregants to make endorsements.
“It
would usher our partisan divisions into the pews,” said Amanda Tyler,
the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious
Liberty, a group that advocates A STRICT SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND
STATE.
Few Americans had even heard of the Johnson Amendment when Mr.
Trump turned it into a rallying cry during the campaign. He told a
crowd at the Iowa fairgrounds last August, “It denies your pastors their
right to free speech, and has had a huge negative impact on religion.”
No
one lobbied Mr. Trump to make the amendment an issue, said Johnnie
Moore, a Christian publicist who serves on the president’s evangelical
advisory board. He said Mr. Trump himself fixed on it in his first
campaign meeting with the board members last June at Trump Tower.
Mr.
Trump asked them why they did not have the courage to speak out more
during elections. When the pastors informed him that they could lose
their tax-exempt status, Mr. Trump declared the law unfair.
In
meetings since then between Mr. Trump and pastors, whether in public or
private, Mr. Moore said, Mr. Trump consistently says, “Everybody in
this country has freedom of speech, except for you.”
Churches
and clergy members are free to speak out on political and social issues
— and many do — but the Johnson Amendment was intended to inhibit them
from endorsing or opposing political candidates.
Separately, the Free Speech Fairness Act was introduced in the House and the Senate on Wednesday. The bill would modify the Johnson Amendment by allowing churches and other charities to engage in political expression.
However,
most Americans, and even most clergy members, say they do not want
churches and houses of worship to engage in partisan politics. Nearly 80
percent of Americans said it was inappropriate for pastors to endorse a
candidate in church, and 75 percent said churches should not make
endorsements, according to a survey released in September by LifeWay
Research, an evangelical polling group based in Nashville.
Moreover,
87 percent of pastors said they should not make political endorsements
from the pulpit, according to a LifeWay survey conducted in 2012 of
pastors in evangelical and mainline Protestant churches. (Clergy members
who were Republicans were slightly more in favor of endorsements than
those who were Democrats or independents.)
Pastors
and churches that endorsed candidates have seemed to have little to
fear from the I.R.S. The overburdened agency has little capacity to
investigate every report of a violation — and there have been many.
But
only one church is known to have ever lost its tax-exempt status for
partisan politicking, and that was in 1995, those on all sides said. It
is impossible to know how many churches the I.R.S. has investigated. The
agency does not make public when it investigates a church for
violations, and an I.R.S. spokesman declined to answer questions related
to the Johnson Amendment on Thursday.
For
years, pastors have openly defied the law on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,”
organized by the Alliance Defending Freedom. Many participating pastors
send their sermons to the I.R.S. afterward.
Watchdog
groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the
Freedom From Religion Foundation<<< have occasionally reported
violators to the I.R.S. and have regularly sent warning letters to
pastors before elections reminding them of the law.
In
a freewheeling speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, the president
defended his immigration policy, brushed aside concern about his harsh
phone calls with foreign leaders and ridiculed Arnold Schwarzenegger for
his poor ratings in replacing him as host of “The Celebrity
Apprentice.”
>He
did not mention any potential executive order on religious freedom,
which >critics said would restrict the rights of lesbians, gay men,
bisexuals and >transgender people; a draft has circulated, but
administration officials have denied that it will be adopted.
Mr.
Trump talked about the influence of faith in his life, referring to the
family Bible, which was used when he took the oath of office. His
mother, he said, read to him from that Bible during his childhood.
“America
is a nation of believers,” he said. “The quality of our lives is not
defined by our material success, but by our spiritual success.”
“I
tell you that as someone who has had material success,” he added,
before noting that many rich people are “very miserable, unhappy
people.”
The
breakfast with religious leaders featured the usual homilies and
testimonials to the power of faith. But the proceedings took a
show-business turn when Mark Burnett, the Hollywood producer, stepped to
the podium to introduce the president.
Mr.
Burnett recalled the influence Mr. Trump’s book “The Art of the Deal”
had on him as a recently arrived immigrant from Britain. He later
produced “The Apprentice” as a reality television vehicle for Mr. Trump.
The
president opened his remarks with an extended reminiscence about the
show, recalling that he fired an agent who had rejected Mr. Burnett’s
pitch for the program. He also needled Mr. Schwarzenegger, the former
governor of California, for failing to maintain his ratings. “We know
how that turned out,” Mr. Trump said. “The ratings went down the tubes.”
“I want to just pray for Arnold, for those ratings,” he said.
Mark
Landler reported from Washington, and Laurie Goodstein from New York.
Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting from Washington.
A
version of this article appears in print on February 3, 2017, on Page
A1 of the New York edition with the headline: President Pledges to Let
Politics Return to Pulpits.
RELATED COVERAGE
Opinion Op-Ed Contributor How Trump Would Corrupt the Pulpit FEB. 2, 2017
President
Trump on Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast, where he vowed to
repeal a federal law prohibiting candidate endorsements by tax-exempt
churches. Credit: Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President Trump just reiterated his campaign promise to “get rid of and totally destroy” the law prohibiting churches and other nonprofit tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.
This change would be horrible for politics — and even worse for religion.
The law,
known as the Johnson Amendment, was written by Lyndon B. Johnson, then a
senator from Texas, in 1954. It prohibits tax-exempt churches from
endorsing political candidates. Mr. Trump on Thursday said
repealing the rule would “allow our representatives of faith to speak
freely and without fear of retribution,” adding, “Freedom of religion is
a sacred right, but it is under serious threat.”
Let’s
start by clearing up two misunderstandings. The rule does not prevent
churches — or other charities — from speaking freely. Religious leaders
and churches have been weighing in on political issues for as long as
there have been pulpits. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jeremiah Wright and thousands of clergy on any given weekend have been energetic advocates of political or social causes.
The
rule does not even prohibit clergy from endorsing a candidate. Rather,
it says that if a religious leader endorses a candidate, then his church
cannot receive the significant benefit of tax exemption, and that
people cannot, therefore, make a tax-deductible contribution to that
church.
Eliminating
the endorsement rule would mean that your tax dollars would now
indirectly subsidize a church’s support for a particular political
candidate. For instance, conservative taxpayers would indirectly support
the Rev. Al Sharpton
if he decided to endorse a candidate — or the local mosque that wanted
to endorse a candidate. And progressives would indirectly support
churches that endorse candidates who are opposed to same-sex marriage.
The
conservatives clamoring for this change should think hard: They don’t
like their tax dollars going to support groups that perform abortions.
Do they really want to pay for churches that push pro-choice candidates?
They fear and distrust Islam. Do they really want their hard-earned
money to back the preferred political candidates of the local Islamic
center?
In addition, this would
likely create a huge new loophole in the campaign finance system. The
donations we make to political candidates are not now tax-deductible.
But if this provision is repealed, you could make a tax-deductible
contribution to a church (or other charity) that is campaigning for a
political candidate.
Houses of
worship and other charities could become unregulated vessels for
campaign contributions, which taxpayers would then have to partly
underwrite because they were deductible. It would be a disaster for our
political system, already reeking of corruption.
It also would be a disaster for religion.
Political
fixers will try to funnel money through houses of worship. The
temptations for clergy members would be intense.
Yes, let’s fix the day
care center in the basement! All we have to do is endorse that
well-meaning candidate and organize a volunteer brigade for him on
Election Day.
It may be that the Internal Revenue Service could clarify its current rules to make it easier for churches to navigate, but the harm of a repeal would far outweigh the benefits.
When
churches move from being independent vehicles for political causes and
become arms of political parties, they lose their prophetic voice.
Worse, they lose their spiritual credibility. As a state legislator in Virginia, James Madison made the case that subsidizing religious organizations undermines religion.
Arguing
against a plan to provide subsidies to churches in Virginia, Madison
said efforts to help religion would backfire, as faith that is purely
pursued was more powerful. Taxpayer-subsidized religion would become
corrupt, lazy and unpersuasive — and worse, he said, “an offense against
God, not against man.”
Amen to that.
Steven Waldman (@stevenwaldman), the founder of LifePosts, is the author of “Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty.”
--------------------------------------
Does politics belong in the pulpit?
he
1954 “Johnson Amendment” currently bars nonprofits, including
churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
Here’s one wall President Trump wants to dismantle: Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between Church and State.”
“Freedom
of religion is a sacred right,” Trump said at the National Prayer
Breakfast last month, “but it is also a right under threat all around
us. That is why I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson
Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and
without fear of retribution.”
The 1954 “Johnson Amendment” bars
501(c)(3) nonprofits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing
candidates for public office. Some see this as a key brick in the
Jeffersonian barrier between Church and State.
Our third
president’s oft-cited “wall of separation” quote comes from an 1802
letter. The debate over politics and pulpit is even older — and still
alive.
Today,
San Diegans play central roles in this drama. While the Roman Catholic
diocese’s bishop, Robert McElroy, is a vocal critic of Trump’s
immigration and economic policies, he declines to endorse or oppose
politicians.
“Our mission is not to elect certain candidates,”
said McElroy, who supports the Johnson Amendment. “Our mission is to
speak to people about the moral dimensions of certain issues that are
coming up.”
Pastor James Garlow at La Mesa’s Skyline Church, though, argues the Johnson Amendment tramples on clergy’s freedom of speech.
“We
object to any governmental intrusion into the pulpit,” Garlow said.
“It’s that simple. I don’t care if they are on the right or on the left,
I don’t care if they want to say something about the candidates or not.
“We’d like to have the pulpit police taken out of our churches.”
Setting
boundaries between church and state can be difficult, said Mary Doak,
associate professor of theology and religious studies at the University
of San Diego.
“The attempt to privatize religion,” she said, “to
make religion only about your private life, does a disservice to
religious people.”
Yet if ministers, imams, rabbis and priests
enlist in campaigns, she said, they risk alienating worshipers and
warping church teachings for ideological purposes.
“Which
candidate is best able to further the goals of the church is not a
matter that is in the church’s expertise,” Doak said. “It is good for
the church to be reminded of that.”
The Wilderness
Jefferson
was not the first to American to advocate a barrier between the sacred
and the secular. In a 1644 pamphlet, nonconformist minister Roger
Williams wrote of “the wall of Separation between the Garden of the
Church and the Wilderness of the world.”
In Williams’ Wilderness,
state-sanctioned churches were common. He was born in London, where the
Church of England was the official faith. In 1631, he migrated to
Boston, where his clashes with the colony’s official Congregational
church led him to depart for Rhode Island.
Despite American
patriots’ protests of “taxation without representation,” colonists were
often taxed to support churches they did not attend. In Massachusetts,
all residents paid taxes to the Congregational Church. In Virginia, the
Church of England was the beneficiary.
An opponent of these
measures, James Madison wrote the “establishment clause” of the U.S.
Constitution’s First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting
the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
...”
Preachers, though, remained engaged in politics. From
abolition to the civil rights movement, many landmark American crusades
were led by activist clergy.
Ministers also used their pulpits to
endorse or attack candidates, Garlow noted, even on Election Day. The
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, a popular Brooklyn-based Congregationalist,
sermonized on behalf of Lincoln’s election and re-election.
Father Charles Coughlin, a Catholic priest with a controversial radio show, endorsed FDR in 1932 and one of his rivals in 1936.
Historians
say that then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson was not thinking about the clergy
when he pushed a tax code amendment in 1954. Instead, The New York Times
reported, his intent was to silence “two nonprofit groups that were
loudly calling him a closet Communist.”
Passed by a Republican
Congress on a voice vote, then signed by a Republican President, the
amendment defanged Johnson’s critics. Months later, the freshman senator
won re-election.
The amendment had served its immediate purpose. Its enduring effect, though, is still debated.
Pulpit Freedom Sunday
Recently introduced in Congress, the Free Speech Fairness Act would lift prohibitions on political speech from the pulpit.
At
a Washington, D.C., news conference on Feb. 1, three of the act’s
congressional supporters spoke — as did numerous clergy, including
Garlow.
Although every sponsor of the bill is Republican, Garlow said this is not about boosting GOP candidates.
“I simply want the pastors to have that freedom and liberty that the First Amendment guarantees,” he said.
In
2008, 33 pastors decided to test the Johnson Amendment. They delivered
overtly political sermons, then mailed recordings of these talks to the
Internal Revenue Service.
“Pulpit Freedom Sunday” has become an annual event in dozens of churches — including Skyline.
So far, the IRS has responded with silence or form letters thanking the ministers for their submissions.
Garlow’s
sermons regularly address human trafficking, abortion, same-sex
marriage, the national debt and other hot button issues.
“Some would say the church should not be in politics,” he said. “This is not political — this is Biblical.”’
He
also dismissed concerns that churches could become political
fundraising arms, showering tax-free money on favored candidates.
“This church — any church — has no extra funds to give anybody,” Garlow said. “But if they want to, so what?”
“A dangerous corruption”
In
1992 an upstate New York congregation, the Church at Pierce Creek,
bought a full-page ad in USA Today and The Washington Times.
Headlined
“CHRISTIAN BEWARE,” the ad cited Biblical passages that were seen to
contradict the positions of the Democratic candidate for president.
“How then,” the ad concluded, “can we vote for Bill Clinton?”
Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit, complained
to the IRS. In 1995, Pierce Creek lost its tax exempt status.
“Clergy
are permitted to speak about issues almost without limit and nobody is
trying to stop that,” said Barry Lynn, Americans United’s executive
director. “But when churches look and act like political action
committees and endorse or oppose candidates, that’s different.”
A lawyer who has a theology degree, Lynn said polls show Americans — laity and clergy — don’t want political stumping in church.
“People go to church, go to a temple or
synagogue, to get advice, to get moral messages, to be told how to
live,” Lynn said. “They don’t go there to be told how to vote.”
That is true for liberals as well as conservatives, he said. In 1988, pastors backing the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s
bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination planned a “Super
Sunday.” Collections that day, the pastors announced, would benefit the
Jackson campaign.
Americans United responded by warning the
churches — and then complaining to the IRS. This was bad politics, Lynn
said, and bad religion.
“It is a dangerous corruption of the
political process and the integrity of churches to have them mix in this
very partisan way,” he said.
Descent into hell
Addressing
a conference last month, Bishop Robert McElroy urged his audience to
“disrupt” the Trump administration’s deportations of undocumented
residents, its refugee ban, its moves against Obamacare and several
other issues.
Yet McElroy, head of the Catholic Diocese of San
Diego, did not call for Trump’s removal from office — nor will he if
Trump seeks re-election in 2020.
“Our tradition, especially in the
United States, is to not seem in any way to be endorsing candidates,”
McElroy said. “The church understands itself as having no specific
political mission, but it has a moral mission.”
While McElroy
backs the Johnson Amendment, not every priest has followed his lead. In
the month before the 2016 election, bulletins at Immaculate Conception
Catholic Church in Old Town warned that Catholics who voted for Clinton
would “descend into hell.”
The diocese issued a statement, saying the bulletin did not reflect Catholic teaching or diocesan attitudes.
That
incident was widely reported, from the Union-Tribune to Huffington
Post. Unnoticed was a similar episode with a dissimilar message: a
priest in an unnamed San Diego parish sermonized on behalf of Clinton.
“She
wasn’t mentioned by name,” McElroy said, “but people who were listening
felt it was very clear. I had to call there and say, ‘Knock it off.’”
While McElroy said churches shouldn’t have a partisan identity, he insisted that issues are fair game.
The
bishop admitted his “disruptor” speech was met with protests from
Catholics and non-Catholics who want the church to stay out of politics.
Many of the objections, he said, came from parishioners who support the
church’s work against abortion.
“People don’t really object to the church speaking to a moral question,” McElroy said, “if it is the one they like.”
Nobody can say they were not warned. Donald Trump promised a Muslim visa ban, to put “America first” on trade and nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court. That is what he is doing. He also said he would “wipe out Isis” and build a wall on the Mexico border. Expect announcements on those in the near future. Ditto for big tax cuts and sweeping deregulation. What you see is what you get.
Though he may never have read one, Mr Trump has always been an open book.
If you want to prepare for the next four years, you should internalise the Trump manual.
The master key is Mr Trump’s management philosophy. Now in his eighth decade, Mr Trump is not about to change how he does business. His first rule is never admit to a mistake. Mr Trump will dig his heels in rather than apologise. Even casual errors will accidentally become formal policy. It is unclear, for example, whether Mr Trump deliberately avoided mentioning Jews in his statement on Holocaust Memorial day. Yet he is now committed to not mentioning them.
Making Mexico pay for the border wall may have been a campaign throwaway line. Ensuring it does is now the chief goal of US-Mexico relations. It left Enrique Peña Nieto, Mexico’s president, with little choice but to cancel his Washington trip last week.
For Mr Trump, the costs of sticking to a bad policy will almost always be lower than admitting to error.
The second rule is make critics pay. If you cross Mr Trump he will hit back 10 times harder. Since he now occupies the most important bully pulpit in the world, this has consequences — as US government employees are finding out. Last week Mr Trump fired Sally Yates, the acting attorney-general, for declining to argue in court for Mr Trump’s badly drafted temporary ban on issuing visas to citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. He accused her of betrayal rather than a professional difference of opinion.
Mr Trump’s spokesman called on US diplomats to resign rather than register their differences through the State Department’s longstanding “dissent channel”. Pointing out a policy’s weakness is a key duty in any serious government job. Mr Trump has made it clear that he wants cheerleaders not critics.
Foreign leaders, including Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, should be wary. Mr Trump will not hesitate to escalate when challenged.
His administration has already singled out Germany for alleged currency manipulation and lambasted Ms Merkel’s decision to take in Syrian refugees. Ms Merkel is rightly treading with great care.
Businesses should also beware. Barely 20 minutes after Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing’s chief executive, defended free trade with China, Mr Trump threatened to cancel the deal to build a new Air Force One.
Those banking on the US constitution to constrain the president should make a Plan B.
Mr Trump has made clear he shares Richard Nixon’s view that the president can pick and choose which laws apply to him. From tax audits to eavesdropping, the retaliatory means at Mr Trump’s disposal are vast. The value of whistleblowers has rarely been higher.
The third rule is do whatever it takes to promote the brand. If that means bending reality, or coming up with an alternative one, so be it. What works for the Trump business franchise has vastly greater implications as commander-in-chief.
The day after Mr Trump’s inauguration, he told CIA employees that it had stopped raining the moment he began speaking. The meteorologists did not agree.
He also personally called the head of the National Parks Service to instruct him to delete a tweet showing unfavourable side-by-side photos of the thin crowds at his inauguration versus the overflow at Barack Obama’s. It was duly taken down.
These are relatively minor issues. But how will Mr Trump react when government scientists issue their next report on global warming? What will he do when the Bureau of Labor Statistics announces a rise in unemployment? We have yet to digest the enormity of Mr Trump’s waywardness with facts.
They say the first casualty of war is the truth. In an age of cyber war, truth is a primary target. When your enemy’s objective is to sow confusion, it is doubly important America’s president has sufficient credibility to refute lies. It is a national security imperative.
Mr Trump is as likely to be a source of wild propaganda as a check on it. Look at his verdict on the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton won almost 3m more votes than Mr Trump. He continues to insist the election was hijacked with between 3m and 5m rigged votes.It is hard to come up with a bigger “alternative fact” than that.
Which brings us to the final rule: pride trumps all else. Because he lost the popular vote, the president cannot shed that nagging urge to counter doubts about the legitimacy of his victory. Liberals can always be relied on to stoke it.
The temptation to allege corruption where it does not exist, or to claim the system is rigged, will always haunt Mr Trump. He will thus continually be drawn into casting doubt on the rule of law in the country he leads.
Those who wish to damage America’s standing need not lift a finger. Mr Trump is doing it for them. As Napoleon said: “Never interfere with your enemy while he is making a mistake.”
Don't turn America's houses of worship into political action committees. - US News and World Report
Prevent Pulpit Politicking
For many decades, the federal
government has had a deal with houses of worship and other nonprofit
organizations: The groups don't have to pay taxes and in return, they'll
provide some type of benefit to society.
Meddling
in partisan politics by working to get a candidate elected to (or
defeated for) public office doesn't rank as a societal benefit.
Therefore, if a group wants to do that type of work, it doesn't qualify
for tax exemption.
This
agreement goes back to 1954 when then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson sponsored
what President Donald J. Trump calls the "Johnson Amendment" to federal
tax law. The provision keeps tax-exempt entities focused on their core
missions by prohibiting them from endorsing or opposing candidates for
public office. Considered completely noncontroversial at the time, the
amendment passed with no protest and was signed into law by President
Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Time
has vindicated Johnson's vision, and the arrangement has worked quite
well. Houses of worship, museums, colleges, charities and other
tax-exempt entities provide an array of services. Sometimes, their work
takes a little of the burden off the government. A church soup kitchen,
for example, may mean the government has to do less funding for welfare
programs. Partisan politics is not part of their mission.
Martin Scorsese's latest film "Silence" offers a clear window into the souls and minds of the faithful.
Grazie Pozo Christie - Dec. 20, 2016
Being
free from taxes is an extraordinary benefit. As such, it comes with
some modest controls, and the restriction on electioneering on behalf of
candidates is among them. The rules don't bar discussion of political
issues by tax-exempt nonprofits. The only thing these groups can't do is
become shills for someone's campaign for office.
Such
a restriction makes perfect sense. Recall that the idea behind tax
exemption is that the groups that get it are doing something beneficial
for society. Getting someone elected to the office of mayor, governor,
congressperson or president benefits only the person who wins the office
and possibly his or her supporters. It's hardly a public benefit that
everyone should have to subsidize.
It's
surprising, therefore, to hear Trump attack the Johnson Amendment's ban
on church politicking and vow to "totally destroy" it, as he did during
this year's National Prayer Breakfast.
It's
not clear who put this idea in Trump's head, but it's obvious he hasn't
thought through the consequences of this proposal. Allowing tax-exempt
groups to advocate for the election or defeat of political candidates
threatens to change the very nature of nonprofit groups in America. It
could politicize our churches, which polls say is about the last thing
anyone wants.
What everyone's saying about the president promising to "destroy" the Johnson Amendment at the National Prayer Breakfast.
Hayley Hoefer - Feb. 2, 2017
What
Trump fails to grasp is that there are existing organizations in this
country specifically designed to do partisan political work. They're
called political action committees, 501(c)(4) groups and 527s. Unlike
tax-exempt organizations, these groups are subject to oversight in an
effort to at least provide some control over campaign-finance spending.
This oversight is tenuous as it is, and permitting tax-exempt groups to
jump into partisan electoral politics would create an enormous loophole
that would allow virtually untraceable amounts of "dark money" to flow
into the coffers of candidates. (Indeed, religious institutions are
specifically exempt from disclosing who gives them money or how it is
spent.)
Think
of it: Who would give a donation to a candidate, money that's not
tax-deductible, when you could give it to a church and deduct it fully,
secure in the knowledge that the church would use it to help the
candidate?
Trump's
proposal would corrupt the mission of our houses of worship. It
threatens to drag centers of spirituality into the dirty world of
partisan politics; it would also divide congregations. A house of
worship is perhaps the last place where a person can escape, if only
momentarily, the "red/blue" divide that has fractured our nation.
Allowing partisan politicking in churches would disrupt that harmony.
That is why nearly 80 percent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose
partisan electioneering from the pulpit. (Clergy oppose it even more at a
whopping 87 percent.)
Of
course, for those religious leaders or heads of nonprofits who just
can't stay out of elections, there is an option: They can surrender
tax-exempt status and be as partisan as they want to be. But those
demanding the "right" to bring partisan politics into their tax-exempt
institutions never consider this option. They want the benefit of tax
exemption with none of the responsibilities that come with it.
Instead of trying to change the law on pulpit politicking, Trump and his allies would do better to enforce it.
