From the Rose Garden today,

"President Donald Trump on Thursday made good on a promise to allow religious organizations greater freedom in political speech.

"Faith is deeply embedded into the history of our country, the spirit of our founding and the soul of our nation," Trump said in the Rose Garden at a National Day of Prayer event with religious leaders and White House staff. "We will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore."

The president declared his administration would be "leading by example" on religious liberty in the United States.

"We are giving our churches their voices back," Trump said....

Trump promised during the campaign to dismantle the Johnson Amendment, which bans tax-exempt organizations like churches from political speech and activities. His executive order relaxes IRS enforcement of that ban. While the executive order signals a promise kept, fully repealing the Johnson amendment would require Congressional action.

The executive order, called "Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty," also gives "regulatory relief" to companies that object to an Obamacare mandate for contraception in health care. That builds on the 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case, which found that the Affordable Care Act mandate that certain corporations must provide female employees with no-cost access to contraception was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

While an earlier draft of the religious liberty order reportedly would have let federal contractors discriminate against LGBT employees based on faith beliefs, Thursday's version did not include such provisions.

Pastor Mark Burns, a longtime Trump supporter who attended the White House signing and a White House dinner for religious leaders Wednesday evening, celebrated the move, telling NBC News Thursday morning that it was a "great day for religious freedom in America."

Conservative religious groups applauded the move.

"The open season on Christians and other people of faith is coming to a close in America and we look forward to assisting the Trump administration in fully restoring America's First Freedom," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a statement.

Civil liberty groups criticized the order with the ACLU vowing to "see Trump in court"."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-religious-liberty-executive-order-allowing-broad-exemptions-n754786

whomever we choose.

The federal government shouldn't be able to force action on anyone.

If you don't like the business, church, or person for their views, don't associate with them.

To characterize these regulatory changes "fear and hate" is patently absurd.

Somebody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To characterize these regulatory changes "fear and
> hate" is patently absurd.

Oh?
These "regulatory changes" allow people to discriminate for arbitrary, personal "feelings" -- if they're "religious" feelings.

Don't like black people? Too bad, you still have to do business with them...unless you have a religious "feeling" about not liking them, then you can get away with it.

Don't like white people? Too bad, you still have to do business with them...unless you have a religious "feeling" about not liking them, then you can get away with it.

Don't like gay people? Too bad, you still have to do business with them...unless...

Well, you get the picture.

This is *entirely* about hating people. And fearing that they'll somehow "infect" you with what you hate about them.

To claim otherwise -- that's what's "patently absurd."

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is *entirely* about hating people. And
> fearing that they'll somehow "infect" you with
> what you hate about them.
>
> To claim otherwise -- that's what's "patently
> absurd."


Really? Hatred and fear are emotions that can only be absolutely confirmed by their "owners." Are you claiming to be a mind reader now, or have you redefined the actions in question as motivated only by hatred and fear with no universe of other motives possible?

It's you who is being patently absurd. People are complex beings, and you should learn to allow them to be such without feeling the need to pigeonhole them into something that fits your ideology rather than trying to understand the reality of a situation.

Humans in the real world (not your simplistic binary version) actually can oppose actions, consider things to be immoral or wrong and simultaneously have no specific hatred, fear, or malice toward the individuals who do such things. Your constant beating of the "hatred" drum is a childish attempt to demonize a vast array of positions that you disagree with.

Please. Grow. Up.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? Hatred and fear are emotions that can only
> be absolutely confirmed by their "owners." Are you
> claiming to be a mind reader now, or have you
> redefined the actions in question as motivated
> only by hatred and fear with no universe of other
> motives possible?

Externally visible actions demonstrate underlying emotions.
No need to pretend to be able to do magic, like religious people do.

> It's you who is being patently absurd. People are
> complex beings, and you should learn to allow them
> to be such without feeling the need to pigeonhole
> them into something that fits your ideology rather
> than trying to understand the reality of a
> situation.

I said nothing whatsoever about "allowing" or "not allowing" anyone to do anything.
Their actions demonstrate their feelings.

> Humans in the real world (not your simplistic
> binary version) actually can oppose actions,
> consider things to be immoral or wrong and
> simultaneously have no specific hatred, fear, or
> malice toward the individuals who do such things.

Their actions don't demonstrate that they have "no specific hatred, fear, or malice." Their actions demonstrate the opposite.

> Your constant beating of the "hatred" drum is a
> childish attempt to demonize a vast array of
> positions that you disagree with.
>
> Please. Grow. Up.

Please, start being honest instead of making excuses for fear and hatred.

And I do NOT "constant[ly] drum beat..."hatred."" I used it when the actions of people demonstrate they have it. Like here.
So was that hyperbole or dishonesty on your part?

I've had dozens of "conservative christians" admit to me one-on-one that they "hate the sin," though they usually claim to "love the sinner" (which I don't buy). That's hate, and they admit it.
These same people admit to being afraid that "normalizing" same-sex relationships will somehow "rub off" on their kids, making it "acceptable" to be gay (as if that's why people are gay). That's fear.

I've got evidence from actions and admissions. All you've got is name calling.


http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/05/26/dear-offended-christian-from-a-very-tired-christian/


http://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/22/mississippi-anti-lgbt-law-hb-1523-bible-446297.html



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2017 05:28PM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Externally visible actions demonstrate underlying
> emotions.
> No need to pretend to be able to do magic, like
> religious people do.
>

A non answer. There is a universe of motives and your claim to know with certainty that which motivates a given action is beyond arrogant.

I know from my personal life that your mind reading fallacy is wrong. I strongly appose a number of issues that close family members have embraced, and I have never for a moment stopped loving them or contemplated severing relations. My wife feels exactly the same, and I've spoken with other people of faith who disagree on moral issues but would never consider embracing hatred for those they disagree with.

Your arrogance and simplistic world view is breath taking. Call me a liar, or admit that you are completely wrong and cannot read minds. Better yet, why not just allow the world to be the complex, messy thing it is instead of insisting you have some super human power to sift through the universe of human motivations and declare which one is true.


>
> I said nothing whatsoever about "allowing" or "not
> allowing" anyone to do anything.
> Their actions demonstrate their feelings.

Yes, and you are clueless regarding their feelings. Can a family who has lost a gay child to suicide recognize the higher levels of depression among gay people and the scientific fact that some people are sexually fluid therefore encourage loved ones to go slowly on their embrace of the gay lifestyle? Or are they simply the same as violent skinheads who beat up gays in your simplistic binary world? One is motivated by love, the other by hatred. How do you square that?

Like I said. You need to stop being so arrogant and embrace a complex world where many people will not fit in your bigoted, prejudiced, simplistic notions.


>
> Please, start being honest instead of making
> excuses for fear and hatred.
>
> And I do NOT "constant drum beat..."hatred."" I
> used it when the actions of people demonstrate
> they have it. Like here.
> So was that hyperbole or dishonesty on your part?
>

You live in a childish world where any disagreement can be dismissed as an act of hatred. I truly hope you'll expand your world one day allow people to be the complicated beings they are. And recognize that not all issues can fit neatly in your "Hatred! Bigot!" box.

I recognize that a skinhead who opposes gay marriage is an infinitely different individual than a 85 year old Idaho farmer who just thinks marriage should just be between a man and a woman. The one clearly has hatred, the other is likely representative of a huge number of similar people who have no opinion of gay people whatsoever. They just believe in traditional marriage.

Do you realize these two individual are completely different?


> I've had dozens of "conservative christians" admit
> to me one-on-one that they "hate the sin," though
> they usually claim to "love the sinner" (which I
> don't buy). That's hate, and they admit it.
> These same people admit to being afraid that
> "normalizing" same-sex relationships will somehow
> "rub off" on their kids, making it "acceptable" to
> be gay (as if that's why people are gay). That's
> fear.
>

Straw man to the end. I hate it when people cut me off in traffic, and may tell them so to their face when given the opportunity. I have never harbored hatred for those drivers. I am also opposed on moral grounds to a variety of activities you may personally think are fine. I will express my opinion when asked and will argue for its validity. I'm amazed at the arrogance of someone who doesn't even know me yet somehow sees my opinions as hatred for people when they are not.

Your choice is to either call me a liar or admit that you are a complete failure in your arrogant belief that you have the ability to read minds and correctly attribute motives to actions.

Get a room, you two.

Weirdest bromance ever.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your choice is to either call me a liar or admit
> that you are a complete failure in your arrogant
> belief that you have the ability to read minds and
> correctly attribute motives to actions.

Well, that's a false dichotomy fallacy -- there are actually far more choices than that.

But in this case, your first option is probably the correct one.
You're a liar.

You clearly demonstrated that fact:

"I hate it when people cut me
off in traffic, and may tell them so to their face
when given the opportunity. I have never harbored
hatred for those drivers."

I hate...but I don't hate.
That's lying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2017 09:12AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Wow Hie.

Did you read short-hair's post?

Your going to call him a liar because . . . . his argument made sense.

This is a good opportunity for you to acknowledge you were wrong and tip your hat to short hair.

Can you do it?

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow Hie.
>
> Did you read short-hair's post?
>
> Your going to call him a liar because . . . . his
> argument made sense.
>
> This is a good opportunity for you to acknowledge
> you were wrong and tip your hat to short hair.
>
> Can you do it?

Yes, I read it.
No, I'm not going to say I was wrong, because I wasn't.
As he demonstrated with his own words.
He says he hates, but then says he doesn't hate.
That's lying.

And his argument *didn't* make sense. It was a dishonest smokescreen.

I'll admit when I'm wrong. This isn't one of those times.

Tall Man, Short Hair,

I have read your comments regarding gay people on other threads. They are based in fear and ignorance. I'm not buying your "There is a universe of motives" bullshit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2017 09:37AM by Atari.

I will give the bigots credit for their ability to market their bigotry.

They somehow managed to brand their anti-gay bigotry as "pro-family" and"religious liberty".

But at the end of the day, bigotry is ugly no matter how you label it.

There is definitely a universe of motives.

But you've introduced a new word: ignorance.

So, it could be hated, or fear, or some other motivation, which I'd suggest is likely rooted in an ignorant, unenlightened world view.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2017 11:59AM by thingsithink.

Do you you hold the entire First Amendment in contempt, or is it just freedom of association that you have a problem with?

So let's say the pope convinces all the catholics in the US to vote in a block for the candidate that promises to repeal abortion, outlaw birth control, and eradicate mormonism or other non-catholic religions from the US.....you don't find that scary?

Many of those voting would likely be doing it out of fear...fear of disobeying the pope by not supporting his hate.

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So let's say the pope convinces all the Catholics in the US to vote in a block for the candidate that promises to repeal abortion, outlaw birth control, and eradicate mormonism or other non-Catholic religions from the US.....you don't find that scary?

> Many of those voting would likely be doing it out of fear...fear of disobeying the pope by not supporting his hate.

American Catholics do not fear "disobeying" the Pope. Case in point, the vast majority of Catholics use artificial birth control. There are nuns who support abortion rights. What's the Pope going to do, throw them out of the church? The Catholic church only rarely excommunicates members. There is no equivalent of the Mormon temple recommend to hold over the membership. Many Catholics take a cafeteria approach.

Where Catholics predominate (Ireland, Brazil, etc.) then the church does try to throw its weight around with regard to issues such as abortion and divorce. But that won't happen here.

It was a hypothetical question designed to illustrate a point. I could have used any example, I just happened to choose the pope because there are quite a few catholics in the US. I'm not making a general statement about catholics in the US.

Let's try another one....Joseph Smith had the ability to get his followers to vote in blocks and thereby gain control and dominance over their neighbors/ the gentiles.....some of the followers that voted according to Smith's counsel probably did so out of fear of disobeying him and out of hatred for non-mormons. That's what non-mormons found very scary about mormons.

If Smith would have had the backing of the government to do this, it would have made it that much worse.

Better?

You were adding to an anti-Catholic stereotype that I felt the need to address. The stereotype is an old one and came into play during the Kennedy election. Voters were afraid that Kennedy would dance to the pope's tune. Catholics knew that would not be a worry, but it took a while to convince the public at large that Kennedy's religion should not be a factor in their decision-making.

"Then you win."


Intolerance is fighting a losing battle. Freedom of and from religion will win.

while there is still time. But it won't work. The children and grandchidren of these intolerant people don't share their views.

When they die, this world of bigotry and intolerance from the 1950s of their imagination they sought to create will die with them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2017 05:07PM by anybody.

One small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind.

or who he was, what he said, or what he did.

But what Neil Armstrong said and did on the surface of the Moon on 20 July 1969 will be remembered as long as human beings exist.

It's funny that they think they've been "neutral"

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5253001-155/mormon-church-vows-to-keep-neutral

Quoting from the SL Tribune article, "The LDS Church maintains a neutral stance in partisan matters, saying it "does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms" and noting that Mormons "may have differences of opinion" in such cases."

It's only an "official" stance. The reality is more LDS are conservative and Republican than Democratic or liberal in their views.

The GA are 99.99% GOP, conservative Republicans, aka as businessmen moonlighting as apostools.

Very few leaders in Moism identify as Democrat or liberal, and are the exception. The church controls all aspects of its members lives; differences of opinion are neither encouraged or supported.

How can government of the people claim to unify its citizens, when they allow those same citizens to pull away from each other, by allowing actions that destroy the very idea of being unified. Government should stay out of our private lives, but guide us in our actions when dealing with others. If you want your freedom, stay in your cave. but if you want life, you need to play by the rules. And to keep this exmo related, question everything and demand answers. Faith is for the weak, knowledge is the power of the universe.

"...question everything and demand answers. (blind) Faith is for the weak, knowledge is the power of the universe."


That's why.

Part of me wonders if this will just incite religious hatred.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Part of me wonders if this will just incite
> religious hatred.

I had that same thought, summer.

Having a very simple understanding of the implications of the changes, I see it as an easier way to let my spending habits weed out the businesses that support intolerance.

For example, the cake business that would not make a cake for same sex weddings. If a business made a policy of discriminating based on religious beliefs that I thought were unfair, I would make a point to personally boycott them. If enough people felt the same way, they would go out of business.

With the current laws, you do not know who you are supporting. The person you may be giving your hard earned money to may be a racist bigot but you do not know it because legally they cannot discriminate.

I say let them show their true colors. At least, then you know who your spending habits are supporting.

OK, except...

How am I supposed to know their "true colors?"

If an hour before I walk into a store, they owner refused to do business with Asian people, how am I supposed to know that?

If last week, the store's owner refused to do business with a gay couple, how am I supposed to know that?

They can have whatever religious beliefs they want. They can consider anything they want "immoral." What they can't do -- legally or morally -- as a "public accommodation" business is refuse to serve people because they think they're "immoral."

And let's be clear, this *isn't* about them not serving people they consider "immoral" anyway. The bible calls being drunk a sin, it calls "fornication" a sin, it calls picking up sticks on the "sabbath" a sin worthy of death...but you don't see christian business owners refusing to do business with somebody who gets drunk (which they don't know about or ask about), or with somebody who just had unmarried sex (which they don't know about or ask about), or with people who "violate" the "sabbath."
They only want to refuse to do business with gay people.
Clearly showing this isn't about religious belief at all.

You make good points.

There really isn't a way to know they refused an hour prior. But word does get out about businesses refusing to do business with same sex couples. Boycotts do not work immediately. But I think they do work over time.

I may very well be wrong...

But if the laws are changing, boycotts are a way of combatting intolerant businesses.

Just for the record: one of the businesses in question was a bakery in my state, and I heard details of what happened. This bakery had been serving gay people with other kinds of orders such as birthday cakes etc. with no problems. When making a wedding cake was requested, they said they could not participate in that particular thing, but they gave names of several nearby bakeries that they knew had no problems with it. So it wasn't really as hateful or even unreasonable as it sounds without details.
Someone decided to see if the local commission who makes the decisions if it was illegally discriminating (yes, we have one) was actually fair, so they went to bakeries of known gay bakers and requested cakes that were an open Bible. They were refused more than once, and the commission did not regard that as unfair discrimination. Just sayin.

Learn the details. This is not true; it wasn't about just not wanting to serve gays. They had been serving gays, and knew it. Just not to make a weeding cake.

And if they were the only bakery within reach? And most of the local population agreed with them? You, or I, not using their services wouldn't hurt them.

This is why we should have non-discrimination laws. If you have a business open to the public but won't serve all of the public, then you should either change your mind or shut down quick.

It's just a f*****g CAKE.

They weren't the only bakery in reach; they actually referred their customer for whom they had made other kinds of cakes before, to other bakeries, several of them.

Although on GP it does make sense to ask this question; it's a fair question.

What if you wanted pulled pork for your party and you demanded that a Moslem or Jewish-owned caterer provide it, and they wouldn't. Would that be analogous?

In the bakery situation that I know about, the bakery was actually "set up" as a political strategy, which ain't very neighborly either.

relievedtolearn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if you wanted pulled pork for your party and
> you demanded that a Moslem or Jewish-owned caterer
> provide it, and they wouldn't. Would that be
> analogous?

No, it wouldn't.
Jewish caterers don't make pulled pork for ANYONE.
So not making pulled pork for YOU is treating you the same as everyone else.

The bakery makes wedding cakes. Their normal business is making wedding cakes. If they deny YOU a wedding cake, but make them for other people, they're discriminating. Illegally.

So are religions going to start paying taxes or are they still tax exempt!???

They are still tax exempt.

It's representation without taxation. Which is kind of twisted when you think about it.

That's so messed up.So they can still play politics but are tax exempt. Why does this sound like something from the Revolutionary war this country fought over 2 centuries ago??!!

The Johnson Provision prohibits TAX EXEMPT religious entities from endorsing candidates, though they can take sides on issues. The Catholic Church can support the March For Life in Washington every January, but they cannot endorse a slate of pro-life candidates---or risk losing their tax exemption (including the ability of their donors to deduct donations from their taxable incomes.

Organizations which are not tax-exempt (e.g. THe Republican National Committee) are free to endorse anyone, but their donors cannot deduct donations to these entities.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2017 09:10PM by PtLoma.

They'll still be tax-exempt; that's the point. They can preach politics from the pulpit if they want to, and still be tax-exempt.

Trump has united the opposing sides! They both agree that it's little more than pomp and bluster.


https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-so-called-religious-freedom-executive-order


http://www.businessinsider.com/what-does-trump-religious-liberty-executive-order-do-2017-5


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-executive-order-on-religious-liberty-full-text/article/2622142

Even as a believer I am appalled at this action and will not support or attend any church which advocates politics from the pulpit, either left or right. Educated and reared in a different culture, I am constantly amazed just how many Christians I know seem to have the idea that Christianity and Americanism, especially Republican Americanism, are one and the same thing..and I often feel marginalized because of it. Pandering to the religious right, I believe, is at the heart of this order. An executive order geared to bolster the religious right base of the party in power. I go to church to hear the Christian gospel preached and that begins and ends with The Great Commission.

What a fresh outlook!

I have long maintained that any preacher who politics, or any politician who preaches, is a wolf.

I'm not a believer, but used to be. Both the Bible and the US Constitution state not to mix the two realms.

So much for the separation of church and state. Theocracy, anyone? How long will it be until only candidates backed by the largest and wealthiest religions have a shot at winning the presidency? And how much longer until the president becomes no more than a figurehead for a religion that actually runs the country?

The United States just keeps getting worse and worse. Personally I hope this leads to a new revolution. Funny how everyone seems to forget that the settlers who landed in this "new world" originally did so to FLEE RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. But history repeats itself...

oneinbillions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So much for the separation of church and state.
> Theocracy, anyone?

This is, barely, a partial roll-back of the 1950s-era LBJ legislation. The country did just fine, and was not a theocracy, between 1776 and 1954. A history book ... crack one please.

So you can't see how allowing religious organizations to back political candidates is a step towards religious control? Really?

Seems like I overreacted, though. According to the ACLU and numerous other sources, the "executive order" doesn't actually do much of anything. It only reinforces what we already had in place. So meh.

Read the first amendment: it prohibits the government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I have seen the wonderful documentary that the Southern Poverty Law Center made about the children's march in Birmingham AL, so when I hear the impassioned rhetoric about the bakery-florist-photographers, Hobby Lobby, etc. I wonder, is this different from those kids in Birmingham just wanting to be able to sit at the counter at Newberry's and order a hot dog? Evangelicals see "gay" as a choice; as far as I can find out, being born with dark skin is a choice, or result of a pre-mortal choice too---hmmm.

Abortion/birth control---are we talking killing a baby, or are we talking a woman's choice? Didn't her choice end when she had sex? Unless of course she was raped. Then what, if it's a baby?

I don't think this is easy or simple: freedom is messy. My right to swing my arm ends at your nose gets difficult with this kind of thing.

On the other subject being discussed here---the Johnson amendment:

Fear of theocracy if preachers can preach politics is probably not a valid fear in this country; there's way, way too much diversity; it is not a theocracy. I don't think it likely that it ever will be.

It's the "special rights for christians" order.

Special rights for Christians to preach whatever they want to in their own churches? huh?

Washington (CNN)It's hard to imagine President Donald Trump, a very rich man, envying the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns who take oaths of chastity and poverty....

The Little Sisters are represented by the Becket Fund, a nonprofit firm that focuses on religious liberty, who helped the nuns gain a key exemption from the Affordable Care Act.

That case -- and religious freedom writ large -- is what brought together the nuns, the President, and a few dozen religious leaders in the Rose Garden on Thursday. The stated purpose was Trump's signing of an executive order, which he said would prevent the federal government from "bullying and even punishing Americans for following their religious beliefs."

Both liberals and conservative agree, however, that Trump's order accomplishes less than advertised. Robert George, a Princeton University professor and leading expert on religious liberty, called the executive order "meaningless" and "a betrayal...."

For weeks, rumors had swirled that the Trump administration was considering a sweeping executive order that would grant religious believers, schools and corporations extensive exemptions to federal laws they disagree with, from LGBT protections to reproductive rights.

The 3-page executive order Trump signed on Thursday wasn't that -- not even close, leaving many conservative Christians looking like the boy who wanted a BB gun for Christmas and instead got a pair of socks.

The Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson, a proponent of strong legal protections for religious liberty, called the executive order "woefully inadequate."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/trump-religion/index.html

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson, a
> proponent of strong legal protections for
> religious liberty, called the executive order
> "woefully inadequate."


Because anything less than a complete theocracy is just not good enough.

Right that. They absolutely believe that anything less than a complete theocracy is not good enough. But it has to be a theocracy of THEIR particular religion.

The fans of being able to discriminate based on religious beliefs fail to imagine (of course) how this could backfire on them.

"Oh, you're a Baptist? Well I'm a Jew, and we don't believe Jesus is the Messiah or the son of God, so I won't be renting you an apartment."

"I'm sorry, but as a devout Hindu, I don't do business with anyone who follows any of the Abrahamic religions."

"I'm a Seventh-day Adventist, so all you Sunday worshippers just get out of my store."

And so on.

Well at least Adventists can close on Saturday if they want to.

Religion is so wonderful!

Oh wait, it's divisive and awful and responsible for millions of deaths in history and will probably be responsible for millions of death in perpetuity throughout the history of the world.

I welcome an atheist culture. I don't care if it breeds a culture of orgy having, weed smoking, Planned Parenthood supporting people or whatever other nonsense evangelicals imagine- if it was really like that and more it would still be 10 times better then the negative impact religion has had on society.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2017 09:32PM by midwestanon.

It sounds like ACLU declined to sue because the executive order is so toothless it is useless, harmless, and just a show for those who want this kind of thing. Yes, I'm totally offended by it, but relieved it is nothing more than ugly words.

Religion is in big trouble when a guy like donald trump promotes the cause of Jesus Christ who based on our documented, historical records wouldn't acknowledge the trump executive order to discriminate against others in his name! Sorry, no religion has any right to justify discrimination against innocents in the name of their GOD - Christian/otherwise! Untrustworthy jo smith jr. elaborated on our Christian GOD in his book of abraham translation! You've seen it, he's the guy sitting on his throne in Facsimile 2, Figure 7 in the book of abraham with a rather visible erection! Thanks to Min the Egyptian, Pagan God of Fertility/degenerate airhead jo smith jr. - we needed that! Smith was further exposed as an illiterate, manipulative buffoon in his Egyptian book of alphabet/grammar that was icing on the cake, incoherent/more evidence of his ignorance/additional proof of premeditated fraud! Go jo! As Always, tnurg (GRUNT)

I can't think of a church I've read about or heard about that actually suffered consequences for endorsing a candidate or a political platform. The IRS doesn't go after them. Trump signing this order is just a showpiece.

I don't see how it's fair that churches get to be tax exempt and directly influence how their members vote. I think it's against the spirit of democracy when you jump into political speech beginning with an appeal to your religion's authority. It's un-American.

Mormonism, out of any other religion, has the most 'Americanism' baked into it, and it has Doctrine and Covenants section 134. Tearing up the Johnson amendment seems to spit in the face of Mormon scripture, yet there are TBMs glad to see Trump try.

They can't even use the argument that this is religion vs. secularism and all religions are created equal, because the contempt of Islam that Trump has flaunted. This is not about religious liberty. It's about their own particular religion's privledged position above all other religions and moral persuasions in the nation and in their local society especially.