Skip to main content

Religious Liberty, Trump Executive Order, Separation of Church and State

It appears that it will soon be the policy of the Trump administration to "vigorously promote religious liberty".  It will also soon be the administration's policy to go soft on political speech coming from the pulpit.  The Washington Post has it as follows:

"As a candidate and shortly after taking office, Trump declared he would 'totally destroy' what’s known as the Johnson Amendment, a six-decade-old ban on churches and other tax-exempt organizations supporting political candidates... A White House official said Trump would instead direct the Internal Revenue Service to 'exercise maximum enforcement discretion of the prohibition.'"

Fox News reports:


"...Sources tell Fox News the executive order will also allow non-profit organizations, hospitals, educational institutions, and businesses to deny certain health coverage for religious reasons. That would entail protecting Christian groups like Little Sisters of the Poor from being forced to pay for abortion services."

We await the text itself.  And we wonder if the administration will exercise maximum enforcement discretion for the Johnson Amendment on churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques equally.

Will the IRS look at political speeches made by an imam in Deaborn, Michigan the same as it does those made by a Baptist preacher in Mendenhall, Mississippi?

Will Islamic Relief be given as much latitude as Little Sisters of the Poor?  If the Trump administration is not evenhanded in its vigorous promotion of religious liberty, will it be less vigorous in its defense of the First Amendment?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Healthcare, Tom Price, Insurance, Cost, Ecomomics

Tom Price here claims the new American Health Care Act will "bring down costs" and "will allow for more individuals to be covered".  The Congressional Budget Office projects that the number of uninsured under the AHCA will increase from 31 million this year to 52 million by 2026.

If the number of insured people decreases, costs for insurance should increase -- that is, at least, according to the traditional economic axiom of supply and demand.  If there will be greater demand for healthcare as people age and the population grows, and less available supply of coverage through insurance, one would expect prices to increase.

How can the bill "bring costs down" if the number of uninsured goes up?


Raul Labrador, Health care coverage, Death

Congressman Raul Labrador said "Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care."

This statement is false given that if you have cancer it can kill you unless you get care.  Consider some other scenarios in which access to health care could prevent death:


Snake biteCrocodile biteEbola virusWolf attackGunshot woundBroken neckDehydrationShark attack

Without access to health care, people suffering from any of the above may die.  Clearly, then, people do die when they don't have access to health care.

Karl Oliver, Confederate Monuments, New Orleans, Lynching, Mississippi

Mississippi State Representative Karl Oliver said that if the leadership of "Louisiana wishes to... burn books or destroy historical monuments... they should be lynched."



Oliver has a problem here, in that lynching is the illegal or extralegal torture, murder, and mutilation by a mob.

If he is serious in his assertion that people who destroy monuments should be lynched, then he is actually calling for their extralegal torture, murder, and mutilation.  Because he posted this on social media to a public audience, he may even be inciting mob violence.  That may be grounds for charging him under 18 U.S. Code § 2102.

It is hard to believe that a public office holder, a State Representative, would be serious about calling for the torture, murder, and mutilation of those who remove monuments.

Oliver has to clarify -- was he serious, or was he just throwing around inflammatory language to express his anger?

{{Update}} Oliver has deleted the post as of 22 May 2017.