Tag: Seperation of Church and State

Right-Wing Lobbying Group Designated a Church by IRS

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, high tide, Sea Street beach, East Dennis, MA – July 2022 photo by Bob Amaral Photography

The fallout from the Trump years continues. On Monday, ProPublica reported that the IRS had decided that the Family Research Council (FRC), a Right-Wing political lobbying group, qualifies as a church for tax purposes:

“The Family Research Council’s multimillion-dollar headquarters sit on G Street in Washington, DC, just steps from the US Capitol and the White House, a spot ideally situated for its work as a right-wing policy think tank and political pressure group.”

The FRC is now a church, thanks to the IRS and its Commissioner, Charles Rettig. You can be forgiven for not remembering that Trump appointed Rettig to be Commissioner of the IRS in 2018. He got the job by writing a 2016 op-ed saying Trump didn’t have to release his tax returns, despite every major presidential candidate having done so since Nixon.

ProPublica noted that the FRC says on its website that it is a:

“…nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to articulating and advancing a family-centered philosophy of public life. In addition to providing policy research and analysis….[the] FRC seeks to inform the news media, the academic community, business leaders, and the general public about family issues that affect the nation from a biblical worldview.”

Now that the IRS has blessed FRC as a church, it is no longer required to file a public tax return, (known as a Form 990), which reveals key salaries, the names of board members and related organizations, large payments and/or grants by the organization.

And unlike with charities, IRS investigators can’t initiate an audit on a church unless a high-level Treasury Department official has approved the investigation.

Right Wing Watch, an organization that monitors the activities and rhetoric of right-wing activists and organizations reported on the ties between FRC and Trump’s Jan. 6 effort to overturn the presidential election:

“The Family Research Council…was deeply involved in…Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election—a fact made all the more apparent by revelations during the June 23 public hearing of the House select committee investigating the conspiracy that led to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol.”

You probably remember the head of the FRC, Tony Perkins (not the deceased actor) by some of his grandstanding in the culture wars:

  • In 2005, Perkins was against disconnecting life support for Terri Schiavo, a woman who had been in a “persistent vegetative state” for a number of years.
  • In 2008, Perkins called the passage of California Proposition 8 (which prohibited same sex marriage in the state) “more important than the presidential election”.
  • In 2018, Perkins said, regarding Trump’s adulterous past, he should be given a “Mulligan“, because Trump was “providing the leadership we need at this time…”

In 2010, The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designated the FRC as a hate group. From the SPLC:

“Part of FRC’s strategy is to pound home the false claim that LGBTQ people are more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual people. The American Psychological Association, among others, however, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”

Designating the FRC as a church for tax purposes is part of a disturbing trend. The WaPo reported in 2020 about the growing list of religious groups seeking church status from the IRS.

The potential cost of becoming a church is that the organization can no longer conduct political operations on behalf of politicians or lobby on legislation. In practice, that is simple to get around. The FRC now has its church arm alongside a separate lobbying arm called Family Research Council Action.

The arms separate their messaging on two websites, with the FRC hosting issues-based content supporting its Christian worldview while the Family Research Council Action explicitly endorses candidates. Both arms are registered at the same address and both share all five of the part-time employees the FRC lists on its tax form, including Tony Perkins.

These “churches” sure have figured out how to run a scam on the US government.

It’s past time for the IRS to end this charade and tax churches. Biden should fire IRS Commissioner Rettig, who was also the guy in charge when the IRS politically targeted Trump “enemies” James Comey and Andrew McCabe for invasive tax audits.

These people and their “churches” are simply Republicans with a talent for abusing the bible and raising obscene amounts of money. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

Facebooklinkedinrss

Roberts Returns to the Dark Side

The Daily Escape:

Lake Blanche, Upper Cottonwood Canyon, UT – 2020 Galaxy S10 photo by criked

On Tuesday, the Supremes issued another opinion. This one narrows the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. The case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, was a 5-4 decision, with the five conservative justices in the majority, and the four liberal justices dissenting.

From Slate: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“The Montana Constitution contains a “no-aid” provision that bars the state from providing public funds to religious institutions, as do 37 other state constitutions. To work around this rule, the Legislature granted tax credits to residents who donate money to Big Sky Scholarships, which pays for students to attend private schools, both secular and sectarian. (Montana’s demographics ensure that the only sectarian schools that participate are Christian.) In other words, residents get money from the state when they help children obtain a private education, including religious indoctrination. In 2018, the Montana Supreme Court found that this program violated the state constitution’s no-aid clause. But instead of excluding sectarian schools, the court struck down the whole scheme for all private education.”

Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion revived Montana’s tax credit scheme when he announced a new Constitutional principle: Once a state funds private education, “it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

Twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico all provide tax credits or vouchers to families that send their children to private schools. Under Espinoza, they must now extend these programs to private religious schools. More from Slate:

“This decision flips the First Amendment on its head. The amendment’s free exercise clause protects religious liberty, while its establishment clause commands that the government make no law ‘respecting an establishment of religion’.”

In essence, Roberts is now saying that the Establishment Clause supersedes the Free Exercise Clause.

Some background: In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court ruled that, under the Establishment Clause, states were allowed to fund private schools through vouchers or tax credits. Now the court has declared that, under the Free Exercise clause, most states are compelled to fund private religious schools.

Over the past 18 years, the Court’s conservative majority has revolutionized church-state law.

How did the court do this? The barrier between church and state took a hit when five justices permitted state financing of sectarian schools in Zelman. It nearly collapsed when the court expanded religious institutions’ access to taxpayer money in 2017’s Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, which held that states cannot deny public benefits to religious institutions simply because they are religious.

The court claimed that their new rule was actually hidden in the meaning of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause—even though, as Justice Sotomayor pointed out at the time, separating church and state does not limit anyone’s ability to exercise their religion.

More from Slate. Roberts, from the Espinoza opinion: (italics are in the quote)

“A state violates free exercise…when it “discriminate[s] against schools” based on “the religious character of the school.” The government, Roberts explained, has no compelling interest in preserving the separation of church and state beyond what the First Amendment requires. Nor does the government have any interest in protecting taxpayers’ right not to fund religious exercise that infringes upon their own beliefs.”

Said the Chief Justice:

“We do not see how the no-aid provision promotes religious freedom…”

In theory, states could abolish public funding of private schools entirely to avoid funding religious schools, but that’s what the Montana Supreme Court did. And Roberts just condemned that decision as “discrimination against religious schools”, because Montana had originally funded all private schools.

Roberts may be a master at minimizing losses (hits to the credibility or reputation of SCOTUS), while maximizing returns for his masters (conservative victories). In most of the cases where he has sided with the liberals, his opinion has basically boiled down to “lie better the next time.”

That was true in the abortion and DACA cases this term, and in the Census case last term.

So, based on this decision, religious entities (of the right sort) are not only eligible for government funding, they are entitled to it. That, and more equipment for the military.

This is what the America conservatives want. What could go wrong?

The state requires children to go to school. It also provides a school system for those children in order to meet that requirement. If you choose to send yours to a private, accredited/licensed school instead, that cost should be borne by you, not by the taxpayers.

Public funding for religious schools, along with tax-free status for churches, gives too much political power to religions.

That’s exactly why separation of Church and State is so crucial.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Religious Right Praying Justice Ginsburg Dies

The Daily Escape:

Winter, Yosemite Valley, Yosemite NP, CA – photo via wallpaper studio

 This week Right Wing Watch, who follow America’s least attractive thinkers so that we don’t have to, had a column about how Evangelical Christians are circling around Ruth Bader Ginsburg like vultures. The article included this tweet from anti-abortion and anti-gay activist Matt Barber:

We know that RBG just had cancerous tumors removed from her lungs. Yet, what has been made public so far is that RBG was given a clean bill of health, and is expected to make a full recovery. That diagnosis seems to be a big disappointment to many on the Christian Right.

They were extremely happy with Donald Trump’s choice of Neil Gorsuch. They weren’t so thrilled with Brett Kavanaugh, preferring Amy Coney Barrett, who they saw as totally committed to overturning Roe v. Wade. And they want more. In addition to overturning Roe v. Wade, they want prayers back in schools, and they want same-sex marriage abolished.

Things get interesting when you consider just how much Evangelicals truly, deeply hate RBG:

  • In October, pastor Rodney Howard-Brown, who has prayed over Trump in the Oval Office, guest-hosted The Alex Jones Show on Infowars, where he said that Ginsburg should be shot for treason.
  • Lou Engle, a dominionist organizer of stadium-sized prayer rallies, urged Americans to engage in three days of fasting and prayer over the Supreme Court. Earlier, he led prayers asking God to “sweep away the judges” who support the right to abortion.
  • A few weeks ago, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagles re-distributed a 1993 Phyllis Schlafly attack on Ginsburg’s feminist philosophy.
  • Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver has argued that Congress should have impeached justices who supported Roe v. Wade and Obergefell vs. Hodges (the case that legalized same-sex marriage). (BTW, Liberty Counsel opposed the Senate’s bill that would outlaw lynching in the US because the bill extends the right not to be lynched to gays and transgender people.)
  • Earlier this month, former Trump campaign adviser Frank Amedia insisted that Chief Justice John Roberts has not proven to be sufficiently reliable to the Religious Right. That means God has to remove more justices so that Trump can fill Roberts’s seat with another justice whose “values and morality” reflect a “kingdom enlightenment as to what is required by God to change the law of this land now.”
  • Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow John Malcolm told the Daily Caller that Trump would be under pressure to replace Ginsburg with a woman, and named Amy Coney Barrett as a preferred successor.

You may not believe that God spends much time thinking about who sits on the Supreme Court, but these people are deadly serious. They think God is a “family values” Republican. They believe that they know who God wants on the Supreme Court.

America needs to look very closely at any group that argues for followers of a specific religion as a test of who is worthy to sit on the Supreme Court, or who should head our government.

Praying for the death of RBG ought to repugnant to all Americans, but sadly, it isn’t particularly surprising that some “Christians” exhibit such callous inhumanity. They, and their kind of thinking, should be repudiated by all Christians.

There’s some consolation in the fact that RBG has worked to make America a more fair and equitable place. She has made that her life’s calling.

Contrast that to these phony Christians who are working to make America a one-party political entity that follows Jesus Christ.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Roger Williams and Separation of Church and State

Wrongo spent part of vacation reading John Barry’s Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul, an important (and very readable) book that describes the evolution of Williams’ beliefs about the proper role of religion in civil society. To the extent that we know anything about Roger Williams, it is that he founded Rhode Island. But, Barry makes a very persuasive case that he is an important reason why America has separation of church and state today, since Williams was the first person to describe individual liberty in modern terms.

We all learned in high school that colonists came to America for reasons of religious freedom. What few know is that, once they got here, the Puritans were more than willing to persecute those of the “wrong” religion. They built a society in which the heads of the church also ran the government, and only those who were admitted to their church (requiring a unanimous vote) had the right to vote.  In fact, Barry says that one study found that only 21% of emigrants to New England were know to have ever been admitted to church membership. This was very similar everywhere else in the Christian world in the early 1600’s.

The Puritan-run Massachusetts Bay colony was a place of religious authoritarianism. The origin of the conflict between church and state was the view of John Winthrop’s “city on a hill”, an authoritative and theocentric state, while Williams called for utter separation of church and state and respect for individual rights, such as the right not to attend church services.

Massachusetts banished Williams, who moved first to Plymouth and then was banished again to what is modern Rhode Island. Over time, Williams provided both an example, and an intellectual foundation that led to America institutionalizing religious freedom.

Americans are rightly grateful to our founding fathers, who set our Constitution in the right direction, imbedding in it that there would be no official religion, no religious requirement for public office, and a separation of church and state.

The founders didn’t develop those ideas on their own. The philosopher John Locke is often credited with inspiring the idea of religious freedom in Jefferson and Madison. Barry shows that Locke was influenced by Roger Williams, and that Williams had an even more inclusive idea of religious freedom than Locke, thinking that atheists and Catholics should also have religious freedom, ideas that Locke didn’t share.

Williams got his ideas about the supremacy of individual liberty from his work in England with Sir Edward Coke. Williams worked for Coke, taking shorthand, and Coke was a major intellectual influence on Williams’s philosophy. When King James tried to assert the divine right of kings in England, Coke stood up against him with little behind him but the common law. Coke fought to establish the power of habeas corpus. He said “every Englishman’s home is as his castle.” He fought for the supremacy of Parliament over the King, and the supremacy of the Magna Carta as a basis for deciding individual vs. state rights.

Some of the rights Coke fought for in England, and spent time in the Tower of London for espousing, ended up embedded in our American Constitution.

With Rhode Island, Williams created the first government in the world which broke church and state apart. King Charles II copied the concept and some of the language on religious freedom in Rhode Island’s charter into the charters of New Jersey and Carolina, despite establishing the Anglican Church there. Rhode Island was also the first colony to declare independence from England in 1776, two months before the rest of the colonies.

Barry makes the point that few of the founders read Roger Williams, who had died in 1683, but they had read Coke, and most members of the Constitutional Convention knew Williams as a symbol of religious and political liberty.

Since the rise of Christian conservatives in the 1970s, the debate over these issues sounds depressingly similar to that between Williams and Winthrop in Massachusetts. In more obvious ways, each day brings us a new conflict in America over defining the proper role of religion in the matters of state, whether it is pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control, states closing abortion clinics, bakeries refusing to provide wedding cakes to same sex couples, or companies refusing insurance coverage for drugs or procedures they believe violate their religious principles.

Williams risked his life for freedom. His ideas, and his kind of courage were both rare in the 17th century. His was not the 21st century, cartoon-kind. We need more of his kind of courage today.

He was a rare man of faith who thought religious freedom and personal liberty were completely consistent with religious faith.

Facebooklinkedinrss