Trump Signs Executive Order on Religious Freedom

Minister. George Armah Okine

The First Amendment: Religious Freedom, and Freedom to Speak, Print, Assemble, and Petition

We hear a good deal nowadays about “a wall of separation” between church and state in America. To some people’s surprise, this phrase cannot be found in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Actually, the phrase occurs in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, as a candidate for office, to an assembly of Baptists in Connecticut.

The first clause of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clause is followed by guarantees of freedom of speech, of publication, of assembly, and of petitioning. These various aspects of liberty were lumped together in the First Amendment for the sake of convenience; Congress had originally intended to assign “establishment of religion” to a separate amendment because the relationships between state and church are considerably different from the civil liberties of speech, publication, assembly, and petitioning.

The purpose of the “Establishment Clause” was two-fold: (1) to prohibit Congress from imposing a national religion upon the people; and (2) to prohibit Congress (and the Federal government generally) from interfering with existing church-state relations in the several States. Thus the “Establishment Clause” is linked directly to the “Free Exercise Clause.” It was designed to promote religious freedom by forbidding Congress to prefer one religious sect over other religious sects. It was also intended, however, to assure each State that its reserved powers included the power to decide for itself, under its own constitution or bill of rights, what kind of relationship it wanted with religious denominations in the State. Hence the importance of the word “respecting”: Congress shall make no law “respecting,” that is, touching or dealing with, the subject of religious establishment.

In effect, this “Establishment Clause” was a compromise between two eminent members of the first Congress—James Madison and Fisher Ames. Representative Ames, from Massachusetts, was a Federalist. In his own State, and also in Connecticut, there still was an established church—the Congregational Church. By 1787–1791, an “established church” was one which was formally recognized by a State government as the publicly preferred form of religion. Such a church was entitled to certain taxes, called tithes, that were collected from the public by the State. Earlier, several other of Britain’s colonies had recognized established churches, but those other establishments had vanished during the Revolution.

Now, if Congress had established a national church—and many countries, in the eighteenth century, had official national churches—probably it would have chosen to establish the Episcopal Church, related to the Church of England. For Episcopalians constituted the most numerous and influential Christian denomination in the United States. Had the Episcopal Church been so established nationally, the Congregational Church would have been disestablished in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Therefore, Fisher Ames and his Massachusetts constituents in 1789 were eager for a constitutional amendment that would not permit Congress to establish any national church or disestablish any State church.

The motive of James Madison for advocating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was somewhat different. Madison believed that for the Federal government to establish one church—the Episcopal Church, say—would vex the numerous Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Quaker, and other religious denominations. After all, it seemed hard enough to hold the United States together in those first months of the Constitution without stirring up religious controversies. So Madison, who was generally in favor of religious toleration, strongly advocated an Establishment Clause on the ground that it would avert disunity in the Republic.

In short, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was not intended as a declaration of governmental hostility toward religion, or even of governmental neutrality in the debate between believers and non-believers. It was simply a device for keeping religious passions out of American politics. The phrase “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was meant to keep the Congress from ever meddling in the disputes among religious bodies or interfering with the mode of worship.

During the nineteenth century, at least, State governments would have been free to establish State churches, had they desired to do so. The Establishment Clause restrained only Congress—not State legislatures. But the States were no more interested in establishing a particular church than was Congress, and the two New England States where Congregationalism was established eventually gave up their establishments—Connecticut in 1818, Massachusetts in 1833.

The remainder of the First Amendment is a guarantee of reasonable freedom of speech, publication, assembly, and petition. A key word in this declaration that the Congress must not abridge these freedoms is the article “the”—abridging the freedom of speech and press. For what the Congress had in mind, in 1789, was the civil freedom to which Americans already were accustomed, and which they had inherited from Britain. In effect, the clause means “that freedom of speech and press which prevails today.” In 1789, this meant that Congress was prohibited from engaging in the practice of “prior censorship”—prohibiting a speech or publication without advance approval of an executive official. The courts today give a much broader interpretation to the clause. This does not mean, however, that the First Amendment guarantees any absolute or perfect freedom to shout whatever one wishes, print whatever one likes, assemble in a crowd wherever or whenever it suits a crowd’s fancy, or present a petition to Congress or some other public body in a context of violence. Civil liberty as understood in the Constitution is ordered liberty, not license to indulge every impulse and certainly not license to overthrow the Constitution itself.

As one of the more famous of Supreme Court Justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes, put this matter, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Similarly, statutes that prohibit the publication of obscenities, libels, and calls to violence are generally held by the courts to conform to the First Amendment. For example, public assemblies can be forbidden or dispersed by local authorities when crowds threaten to turn into violent mobs. And even public petitions to the legislative or the executive branch of government must be presented in accordance with certain rules, or else they may be lawfully rejected.

The Constitution recognizes no “absolute” rights. A Justice of the Supreme Court observed years ago that “The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.” Instead, the First Amendment is a reaffirmation of certain long-observed civil freedoms, and it is not a guarantee that citizens will go unpunished however outrageous their words, publications, street conduct, or mode of addressing public officials. The original, and in many ways the most important, purpose of freedom of speech and press is that it affords citizens an opportunity to criticize government—favorably and unfavorably—and to hold public officials accountable for their actions. It thus serves to keep the public informed and encourages the free exchange of ideas.

Abel Alvarez

I don't think the church should be involved in politics or endorsing any candidate.

Christian

communists and socialists attack religion.

It is only fair the churches practice self defense.

John Maher

DOTAR ORANGUtRUMP is NOW on the SLIPPERY SLOPE to PRISON and DISCOVERY of WHAT a SWARMY WEASEL HE HAS BEEN SINCE HIS BIRTH in the JUNGLEs of BORNEO do you REMEMBER HIS DAD CLYDE STARRED in that MOVIE with EASTWOOD, EVERY WHICH WAY bu LOOSE !!!

John Maher

the ORANGUtRUMP DOTAR HAS BEEN [ that to ] LOST in SPACE SINCE BIRTH, the BORNEO JUNGLE is NOT a GREAT PLACE to be BORN or EDUCATED.

Eric Beaulieu

Political conversations are something i normally refrain from engaging in other than to state facts but in this instance i feel compelled to speak.

First off i believe that true equal rights are that every person is judged solely by their actions. We are all equal and should strive to be respectful courteous and understanding of others as through this we diversify our experiences and grow as individuals. This enables us to make better informed decisions and guide our followers more effectively.

With this in the open please indulge me being the devil's advocate so to speak.

We all have our own beliefs based on our religious background and chosen beliefs . In this one unifying statement is the heart of the debate dividing this issue. The removal.of government limitations.on clerical free speech is essential to protecting the seperation of church and state and as members of the clergy it is our respinsibilty to use insight wisdom and reserve when speaking to our followers on this dangerous grounds as outside groups actively try to impose their views on other groups and even churches.i.e.. boy scouts by court ruling must except girls homosexuals and transgender members even though by definition and action they are entirely nonprofit church organization in spite of the fact they openly accept members of other religious denominations. This should be a warning to all of us that seperation of church and state only exists when we are able to openly speak and any infringement of this is an infringement on the constitution itself in my opinion.

Before coming to a conclusion on this i strongly encourage fully reading and researching points that require further illumination for you before deciding on a stance on this as the outcome of this decision can have longstanding impacts on all religious groups and the autonomy of churches is very much being challenged by special interest groups that are trying to enforce their views on others beliefs through judicial action. I humbly submit that seperation of church and state should include courts not imposing their viewpoint on a churches beliefs or membership. All people are are free to choose what they believe in but not who to impose those beliefs on

Joseph E Knopick

Good.

Ed

First and foremost, churches have ALWAYS had the right to being vocal in politics, and served as a moral compass to call the people to question actions of corrupt politics. Then Senator Johnson came up with the 501c3 BFS, to attempt to silence "the pulpit."

HOWEVER, only IF a church subjugated itself to the 501c3 yoke, was it subject to all the burdens it brought. IF a church chose to remain free of the 501c3 trash, then they are free to discuss politics, or whatever else they desire. To try and force churches to comply, they have it where all agencies who help churches REQUIRE them to show their 501c3 status, or they don't get any grant money.

What Trump did was restore some balance from Johnson's mayhem.

More to the point, this protects churches from PERSECUTION by individuals, such as the LGBTQ community. People talk about the Christian bakers, but nothing about the Muslim bakers that refused to bake cakes for gay weddings. What most of the stories don't tell you is that the gay couple were "friends" of the baker, and knew the person's religious beliefs. Thus, knowing that, they STILL went to the person. Then, when the person refused, they SUED their "friend." How's THAT for tolerance? Time and again, the skewed media only tells one side, to push an agenda. How would the story role, if it covered all that, with them being "friends," thus KNOWING the person's beliefs, and then suing baker for the baker's beliefs? Wouldn't suit the LGBTQ agenda that many are pushing, huh?

Rev Anthony Yerace

Trump is showing himself as a bigger idiot than anyone thought. Church and State means government, because they knew that you must speak and deal with many Faiths and see things from that point of view not his point of view. As it was explained to me , when you are in the oval office you are an atheist. Religion stays out. You have a moral compass that you use . You do not use your beliefs on that person. That is how wars start. Religion already has to much sway. When the president leaves the office and goes home he can follow his religion. Since he has signed this All religious are no longer tax exempt and their taxes are due that is the good. So make larger donations because Donald Trump fond a way to finance his fence. I'm Reverend Anthony Yerace retired due to health

DJ

If the religious groups & churches want to be involved in politics, then they should pay their share of taxes like everyone else & lose all exemptions. The of church & state is important for balance.

Revereri

This is yet another way to funnel money into the hands of those who cannot be trusted. Do not sully your good name by taking part in this con job/fraud/swindle. Do not tell anyone how they should vote or why; they need to do their own research.

Jesus was a socialist. :)

Nicole Dauch

This is a heart-wrenching topic. Either sides of this issues tend to loose or win "political arguments" regarding this; like as if there are losers and winners. So, one the left wants to stifle the opinions of the right, is how I understand this debate. But all sides are missing the point; this is history repeating itself! Rather than see only your argument down through history, why not consider that they will come for your religion next, for your right to believe or not, for your right to practice a religion "or not"! I am reminded of those days and times in history, when if you were a Christian you were literally crucified or fed to the lions. Or that if you were a Witch, you were burned at the stake. Or if you were not an Natzi, you were sent to the gas chamber. Or if you were a Mormon, militias hunted you down from State to State. Or if you had not faith in God, you were banished from society, fired, and publicly shamed and humiliated. Is not the freedom to chose at play here? Is not the freedom to assemble with those who are like minded to yourself, at risk here? When government passes laws to force you to be straight or gay, or to practice Christianity or Islam, or to not practice nothing for that matter, that is when government is dangerous. Once they force one group of people in doing or saying against their personal or group beliefs, then "they" (government) will come to force you next!

kenneth bruun-olsen

NO, this is a Divisive Action and Clearly meant to Split Society even More than the Politico's have done already. You can't get a Mutual Answer about Religious Belief even when discussed between Friends and Family Members. Religion, in and of itself is little different than a Loaded Gun, you want to be Very Careful where you choose to Point it. Firstly it can be Very Selective, even though I believe that If Jesus Existed he was Probably One of the Coolest Guys in the Room, whatever room that is, and you already have LGBT people judged and discriminated against, or even ostracized. I just Can't see Jesus doing this...not My Jesus, and that is my point. What would Jesus think of the US Government? Probably NOT a Fan with all the Drone Murders and 'War on Terror' nonsense. The 'Death Penalty'? Again, doing HIS Fathers Work with the whole 'Taking of a Life' thing...again, Way Uncool. And Jesus basically had a select number of Shining Moments. the 'Sermon on The Mount' being a biggie. Yet pretty much EVERYTHING that HE Preached on that day is not only NOT PRACTICED by our 'Honorable Government', but Illegal in ever more places...Think HOMELESS PEOPLE for instance. Not to mention going all Old Testament it states Clearly that GOD gave Man (Us) 'All of the Seed Baring Plants' to be given as Food and Medicine. OK, take that verse in a 'So Called' (and WRONGLY SO) 'Christian Country' and you'll Quickly find yourself Gang Raped in some Prison for about 5 years (or LIFE with Maximum Minimums) not to mention the remainder of your life Destroyed via the Ridiculous 'War on Drugs' Prohibition that has NEVER WORKED Anyway. Now that is when The Bible is Used DIRECTLY, just think of how Crazy this kind of Power will be in the hands of a Bought and Paid for Politician who Gives not a Damn about You OR Your Family. WAY BAD IDEA All the Way Around. Now lets talk about The Muslim Religion, which I have Nothing Against as a human being, but THAT is a Religion as well. It seems that Everybody is So Into including Religion as long as it's THEIR RELIGION. Here is an Exercise to Prove my Point: Find a Family, let's call them 'Catholics', and tell them that the Government has Decided...or YOU have 'Decided' that their Children should be raised in The Protestant Faith. I know this is 'Crazy Talk' but as I mentioned earlier, Religion can be a Dangerous thing, and Very Personal. This is a Terrible Idea all the way around.

Bob Anderson

Your picture headline states that opposition groups "thinks mixing politics with worship will have unintended consequences." Trust me, when it comes to Christianity's determination to impose their beliefs and values on everyone else, nothing is "unintended". This is merely payback to those millions of so-called pious Christian stalwarts who held their noses while voting for a twice-divorced, self-confessed adulterer who likes to grab women by their genitals: So much for Christian convictions.

aerobat01

As with most of the garbage that comes from the Right and Alt-Right, this executive order is named as the exact opposite of what it is meant to do. It has the intent to mesh religion and politics in the USA. As such it will not only restrict religious freedom for not conservative Christians but has the potential to force a 'State Religion' on the citizenry. The reality is that the Christian, conservative evangelicals are buying congress with the intent to make their version of the bible, our new basis of law ... just as sharia law is implemented in some muslim countries.

The reality is they are afraid their religion and movement are not strong or righteous enough to survive unless they are forced upon people. And, forcing religion on people is exactly why this country formed in the first place. They should read a little less bible and a little bit more American history.

Bev Lowden

No! I don't need to hear political jargon from the ambo . I hear enough outside of church . It's refreshing and peaceful not hearing political speeches! If they want to preach politics, then they should start paying taxes too!

Madleon

All religious leaders and members of their congregations have multiple roles in society. One is church leader/member the other is American citizen. I advocate for full exercise of both roles. In a clearly religious gathering, i recommend sticking with discussions of spiritual issues that promote the development of individual character and advancement of charity and compassion among all people. If it is on church property, that is a primary reason that we have churches. However, that second role of American citizen is also very much a part of individual character. Take it to the streets, so to speak, and away from recognized church property or spaces. If a pastor or church member wishes to invite others to his or her home, a restaurant, or other public space to discuss political issues, not as church affiliated persons, but as private citizens, then this is Constitutional, and such meetings need no further protection than that already provided in the Constitution.

PT,krystiona McCulloh

It is not up to us to say write dictate make control what or who worship God. We must however worship him in spirit and in truth. For the Lord seemeth such true worshippers. In the bible the people of God are not only in authority they are authority. They also are very important governing bodies that caused some great changes in life for all believers. It is the way of life for Christians to have kings and governing officials because we are indeed a kingdom. The bible says the government is gods servant sent for the punish,emt of evil doers, the governent is gods servant sent for our good. Do ou not want to fear the authorities then do what is right and they will honor you. Without faith it is imossible to please God, and faith without works is dead. Pray the Lord of harvest for laborers for the workers are many but the laborers are few. Don't decry those whom are willing to worship God maybe not asylum do but as they are individually lead to by the Holy Spirit the spirit of truth, who us the comforter. Gods love does not know and or want prejudice nor does it desire unrighteousness. It is perfect and rejects no purety. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.

Kimberly

NO! to the government governing any church or religion for any reason.

Jan

Awesome , Thank you for the extra ! Smile Jesus Love's You !

Jim D.

I don't really care if churches want to insert themselves in the political process. It's a free country and any person and any entity has the right to express themselves as they wish. Clergy can sermonize and say whatever they want about candidates, parties and politics. People need to use their own brains. Don't vote for someone because your preacher told you to. Do your homework and decide on a candidate because YOU think he/she will do a good job.

As for churches? Tax them. They've been getting away with being tax free for far too long. No church should be sitting on any amount of accumulated wealth and real estate while there is a single person that is homeless or a single person that goes hungry. It begs the question, if churches are spending their collected monies on those in need, what are they collecting it for?

storyman2001

The separation of church and state is not what you think. The constitution only prohibits an Official State Religion. No Where does is require a complete separation. Who is that gives us our inalienable rights, God.

storyman2001

So would Jesus support Abortion on demand? Oh no can't talk about it, that might be political. Where politics and values mix then religious people should become political.

Francisco

Should Pulpit be Political❓ Hell No‼️

Robert Hadley

If churches want to be involved in politics, then they should lose thier tax exempt status. Plain and Simple

Annette

Not only should they have their tax status taken away, they should have to pay the same taxes as any other large business at the corporate level!! Churches have no place in government, our forefathers had great insight by creating a separation of church and state.

James

I believe Church and State should remain seperate. God is not a political God. He is the one true God the Father. And Jesus is our Lord and Savior.

Priestess Christina Maher.

Yes Bill they should have their tax status taken away.

William C Millhouse

If the Ultra Right wing Evangelicals etc. want to preach politics, let them and then take away their tax free status. This should shut them up, especially if it is made retroactive to the date that they first started preaching politics.

storyman2001

This is not so much about religious organizations, such as Churches or Temples influencing political thought, but rather giving the same freedom of speech to express how political forces can either complement or contradict a people of faith. Again this goes back to Freedom of Speech.

Priestess Christina Maher.

You can have all the education in the would and not have wisdom. The separation of church and state must stay separate. This act will give fanatical factions permission to run amuck over everyone else. Those factions with the most money to grease political palms, will push to eliminate the freedoms of religion to their own ends. History has a real tendency to repeat itself when its hand is forced by the narrow minded so called purest fanatics.

One example, the push for the moment of silence in schools. They meant it as prayer, my kids did not participate in it and got into trouble. I got a letter from the school, telling me this. I went to the school and told them my children do not have to participate and I told them they do not have to. They only have to participate in the pledge of allegiance, because of those in our family who have died defending it and those that still defend it. Their so called moment of silence was a prayer time in my opinion. Which I find offense in a government building. They can read a book or magazine during that time and be respectful to others who are participating, they will NOT be reprimanded for it.

Every executive order that chips away at this is proof.

Marcus Ferrell

I see that their plan to FURTHER divide the religious communities is proceeding according to plan and and succeeding. Keep arguing amongst yourselves creating deeper chasms between people. Do you work for these people undercover and how much does it pay?

Jan Ellen Berry

President Trump is an Awesome Man and I believe He knows what to do Continue the Economy Uplift !

William w. George

Your damned if you do ,your damned if you don't, All hail the might dollar & praise the rich & powerfull ,sign Heil ,.

hsw

I believe there may be a typo in the original article. "...under an IRS rule known as the Johnson Amendment, churches have 'not' been prevented from endorsing political candidates."

They actually have been prevented...I think the "not" was unintentional.

John Maher

TRUMP calls POPE FRANCIS a BIRDBRAIN for BELIEVING in CLIMATE CHANGE, YEAH NEST HEAD CALLING NAMEs as USUAL

Carrie

The GOP is on a very slippery slope and picking up speed on the path to oblivion. One result of this stupid nonsense is the splitting of congregations as their "preacher" tells them to go one way and they want to go another. My own representative wanted the "religious freedom" act, but he wanted it to include the right to hate. He also voted to overturn the ACA and will be shortly finding out what hell is like for narrow minded weasels. I will go on with my life, ignoring the blathering of a pulpit, that is why I am a High Priestess here...because I didn't go to divinity school...I am not divine, only empowered.

Brother John

A country that; has more military bases around the world than all other countries combined; is the only one to have used nuclear weapons on a civilian population (twice); is the #1 manufacturer, seller and consumer of arms and weaponry; uses chemical weapons (white phosphorous, Agent Orange, D/U munitions, etc); is actively involved in dozens of wars around the globe; overturns elected governments of other countries; supports tyrants and dictators who bend to it's will and uses widespread, on-going propaganda to deceive it's population can use the twisted morality of the Christian god to best advantage. Being a Buddhist nation would be bad for the incredibly profitable business of war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA&index=9&list=PL7420408E36541DA4

Ben

What happened to separation of church and state?

Kirk

I don't think churches are authorities on political candidates. There are left and right leaning churches that will undoubtedly abuse this new development. I think most normal Christians like me will stick to the word of Christ not some political hack turned pastor, or the reverse. Most churches will not change their behavior in regard to politics.

biblical scholar

Trump wins again! He will restore JESUS to politics as the founders intended. Christians have been opressed by atheist sodomite liberals for TOO LONG!

Clayton Beardmore

This reminds me of the old Peter, Paul, and Mary song - "the times, they are achangin'."

Jess Martin

This means tax-free PACs

Marius Gabriel Burja

I am tired of living in the lie of government. I am tired of living in the lie of religion. Faith does not need either one. Mankind is the evil of this world. Mankind created God and law of religion and law of land. I was born free and will die free. As a matter of fact I am on my way to the woods now. This world can go to hell. I've been robbed enough and am no man's slave. Not the governments and not the churches.

Carol Amina

The amount of $$$$ that the right wing christian conservatives will put out to kill the freedom of non christians will be the end of freedom of worship and religion for so many of us. We will lose freedom and the right will rule. Its a very sad day for me.