Latest news with #FaithfulAmerica
Boston Globe
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Critics say Trump's religion agenda will benefit conservative Christians the most
But others, including some Christians, are alarmed by these acts — saying Trump isn't protecting religion in general but granting a privileged status to politically conservative expressions of Christianity that happen to include his supporters. Critics are even more aghast that he's questioning a core understanding of the First Amendment. 'They say 'separation between church and state,'' Trump said at the prayer day gathering, when he talked about establishing the White House Faith Office. 'I said, all right, let's forget about that for one time.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump's creation of these various bodies is 'definitely not normal, and it's very important to not look at them as individual entities,' said the Rev. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, a progressive Christian advocacy organization. Advertisement 'They are indicative of an entire system that is being constructed at the national level,' she said. 'It's a system specifically designed to guide and shape culture in the U.S.' Fleck worries about the combined effect of Trump administration actions and a spate of decisions by the US Supreme Court in recent years. The court, now with three Trump appointees, has lowered barriers between church and state in its interpretations of the First Amendment's ban on any congressionally recognized establishment of religion. Advertisement 'My freedom of religion runs right up to the point when yours begins, and if I am then trying to establish something that's going to affect your right to practice your faith, that is against the First Amendment,' Fleck said. But religious supporters of Trump are happy with his expansion of religion-related offices. 'We were a nation birthed by prayer, founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic to ensure that people could worship as they wished,' said Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, a Republican, at the Rose Garden ceremony where he was announced as chair of the Religious Liberty Commission. Many members are conservative Christian clerics and commentators; some have supported Trump politically. The event featured Christian praise music along with Jewish, Muslim, and Christian prayers. White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers, via email, said the commission is ensuring 'that all Americans' God-given right is protected, no matter their religion.' Rogers said the criticism is coming from anti-Trump advocacy groups that are trying to undermine his agenda. The three entities created under Trump overlap in their marching orders and, in some cases, their membership. In February, Trump established the White House Faith Office, led by evangelist Paula White-Cain as a 'special government employee,' according to the announcement. She's resuming a similar role she held in the first Trump administration. White-Cain — who also serves on the new Religious Liberty Commission — was one of the earliest high-profile Christian leaders to support Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and is considered Trump's spiritual adviser. Her office is designed to consult 'experts within the faith community' on 'practices to better align with the American values.' It also is tasked with religious-liberty training and promoting grant opportunities for faith-based entities; and working to 'identify failures' in federal protection for religious liberty. Advertisement Also in February, Trump created a Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi with representatives from several federal departments. Its mandate is to expose and reverse what Trump claims were 'egregious' violations of Christians' rights under former president Joe Biden. Many of those claims have been disputed, as has the need for singling out for protection the nation's largest and most culturally and politically dominant religious group. A White House action focused on a specific religion is not unprecedented. The Biden administration, for example, issued strategy plans to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia. Both Trump administrations have issued executive orders on combating antisemitism. An April hearing of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias featured witnesses from across federal departments, alleging that Christians during the Biden administration faced discrimination for such things as opposing vaccine mandates or 'DEI/LGBT ideology' on religious grounds. The State and Veterans Affairs departments have asked people to report alleged instances of anti-Christian bias. The White House said the Justice Department formed specific task forces to respond to what it called a 'concentration of bias' against Christians and Jews, but that it's committed to combating discrimination against Americans of any faith. The latest entity to be created, the Religious Liberty Commission, has a mandate to recommend policies to protect and 'celebrate America's peaceful religious pluralism.' Patrick, the chair, has supported legislation requiring Texas school districts to allow prayer time for students and says he wants his state to emulate Louisiana in requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school classrooms. Advertisement Among the commission's mandates: to look into 'conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates' and government 'displays with religious imagery.' Among the commissioners are Catholic bishops, Protestant evangelists, a rabbi, and attorneys focused on religious liberty cases. Its advisory boards include several Christian and some Jewish and Muslim members. Charles Haynes, senior fellow for religious liberty at the Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation focused on First Amendment rights, said the various entities reflect Trump's attempt to fulfill an agenda priority of his conservative Christian supporters. He said the entities' work reflects their long-standing contention that the First Amendment has 'been misapplied to keep Christians out of the public square, to discriminate against Christianity, by which they mean their understandings of Christianity.' Trump's moves and recent Supreme Court cases are reversing a consensus dating at least to the 1940s that the First Amendment strictly prohibits government-sponsored religion at the federal and state levels, Haynes said. He said the First Amendment actually provides broad protections for religious expressions in settings such as public schools. He helped write a Freedom Forum guide on religion in public schools, endorsed by groups across the ideological spectrum. It notes that within some limits, students can pray on their own time in schools, express their faith in class assignments, distribute religious literature, form school religious clubs and receive some accommodations based on religious belief. But Haynes noted that the Supreme Court is now considering allowing Oklahoma to pay for a Catholic charter school, which he said could erase a long-standing standard that public-funded schools don't teach a particular religion. Advertisement 'It's a very different day in the United States when both the Supreme Court and the president of the United States appear to be intent on changing the arrangement on religious freedom that we thought was in place,' Haynes said. 'It's a radical departure from how we've understood ourselves.'
Associated Press
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Critics say Trump's religion agenda will benefit conservative Christians the most
White House Faith Office. A Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias. A Religious Liberty Commission. President Donald Trump has won plaudits from his base of conservative Christian supporters for establishing multiple faith-related entities. 'We're bringing back religion in our country,' Trump said at a recent Rose Garden event, on the National Day of Prayer, when he announced the creation of the Religious Liberty Commission. 'We must always be one nation under God, a phrase that they would like to get rid of, the radical left.' But others, including some Christians, are alarmed by these acts — saying Trump isn't protecting religion in general but granting a privileged status to politically conservative expressions of Christianity that happen to include his supporters. What's up with the 'separation of church and state' debate? Critics are even more aghast that he's questioning a core understanding of the First Amendment. 'They say 'separation between church and state,'' Trump said at the prayer day gathering, when he talked about establishing the White House Faith Office. 'I said, all right, let's forget about that for one time.' Trump's creation of these various bodies is 'definitely not normal, and it's very important to not look at them as individual entities,' said the Rev. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, a progressive Christian advocacy organization. 'They are indicative of an entire system that is being constructed at the national level,' she said. 'It's a system specifically designed to guide and shape culture in the U.S.' Fleck worries about the combined effect of Trump administration actions and a spate of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. The court, now with three Trump appointees, has lowered barriers between church and state in its interpretations of the First Amendment's ban on any congressionally recognized establishment of religion. 'My freedom of religion runs right up to the point when yours begins, and if I am then trying to establish something that's going to affect your right to practice your faith, that is against the First Amendment,' Fleck said. But religious supporters of Trump are happy with his expansion of religion-related offices. 'We were a nation birthed by prayer, founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic to ensure that people could worship as they wished,' said Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, at the Rose Garden ceremony where he was announced as chair of the Religious Liberty Commission. Many members are conservative Christian clerics and commentators; some have supported Trump politically. The event featured Christian praise music along with Jewish, Muslim and Christian prayers. White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers, via email, said the commission is ensuring 'that all Americans' God-given right is protected, no matter their religion.' Rogers said the criticism is coming from anti-Trump advocacy groups that are trying to undermine his agenda. A closer look at the new religious entities The three entities created under Trump overlap in their marching orders and, in some cases, their membership. In February, Trump established the White House Faith Office, led by evangelist Paula White-Cain as a 'special government employee,' according to the announcement. She's resuming a similar role she held in the first Trump administration. White-Cain — who also serves on the new Religious Liberty Commission — was one of the earliest high-profile Christian leaders to support Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and is considered Trump's spiritual adviser. Her office is designed to consult 'experts within the faith community' on 'practices to better align with the American values.' It also is tasked with religious-liberty training and promoting grant opportunities for faith-based entities; and working to 'identify failures' in federal protection for religious liberty. Also in February, Trump created a Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi with representatives from several federal departments. Its mandate is to expose and reverse what Trump claims were 'egregious' violations of Christians' rights under former President Joe Biden. Many of those claims have been disputed, as has the need for singling out for protection the nation's largest and most culturally and politically dominant religious group. A White House action focused on a specific religion is not unprecedented. The Biden administration, for example, issued strategy plans to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia. Both Trump administrations have issued executive orders on combating antisemitism. An April hearing of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias featured witnesses from across federal departments, alleging that Christians during the Biden administration faced discrimination for such things as opposing vaccine mandates or 'DEI/LGBT ideology' on religious grounds. Some claimed that schools' legal or tax enforcement actions were actually targeted because of their Christian religion. The State and Veterans Affairs departments have asked people to report alleged instances of anti-Christian bias. The White House said the Justice Department formed specific task forces to respond to what it called a 'concentration of bias' against Christians and Jews, but that it's committed to combating discrimination against Americans of any faith. The latest entity to be created, the Religious Liberty Commission, has a mandate to recommend policies to protect and 'celebrate America's peaceful religious pluralism.' Patrick, the chair, has supported legislation requiring Texas school districts to allow prayer time for students and says he wants his state to emulate Louisiana in requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school classrooms. Among the commission's mandates: to look into 'conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates' and government 'displays with religious imagery.' Among the commissioners are Catholic bishops, Protestant evangelists, a rabbi and attorneys focused on religious liberty cases. Its advisory boards include several Christian and some Jewish and Muslim members. A commission member, author and broadcaster, Eric Metaxas, supported its work in a column Friday for the conservative site Blaze Media. 'This commission's goal is to strengthen the liberty of every single American — regardless of that person's faith and even of whether that person has any faith,' he wrote. 'It also aims to restore those liberties attacked by hostile and misguided secularists.' Fulfilling a priority for Trump's conservative Christian backers Charles Haynes, senior fellow for religious liberty at the Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation focused on First Amendment rights, said the various entities reflect Trump's attempt to fulfill an agenda priority of his conservative Christian supporters. He said the entities' work reflects their long-standing contention that the First Amendment has 'been misapplied to keep Christians out of the public square, to discriminate against Christianity, by which they mean their understandings of Christianity.' Trump's moves and recent Supreme Court cases are reversing a consensus dating at least to the 1940s that the First Amendment strictly prohibits government-sponsored religion at the federal and state levels, Haynes said. He said the First Amendment actually provides broad protections for religious expressions in settings such as public schools. He helped write a Freedom Forum guide on religion in public schools, endorsed by groups across the ideological spectrum. It notes that within some limits, students can pray on their own time in schools, express their faith in class assignments, distribute religious literature, form school religious clubs and receive some accommodations based on religious belief. But Haynes noted that the Supreme Court is now considering allowing Oklahoma to pay for a Catholic charter school, which he said could erase a long-standing standard that public-funded schools don't teach a particular religion. 'It's a very different day in the United States when both the Supreme Court and the president of the United States appear to be intent on changing the arrangement on religious freedom that we thought was in place,' Haynes said. 'It's a radical departure from how we've understood ourselves.' ___ Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Yahoo
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why Americans won't stop debating the separation of church and state
President Donald Trump launched a new commission on religious liberty on Thursday with some polarizing comments about church-state separation. Speaking at a Rose Garden ceremony, the president questioned whether a gap between the government and religious organizations is a good thing and praised the people of faith working with his administration. 'They say separation between church and state. ... I said, 'All right, let's forget about that for one time,'' he said near the beginning of his remarks. He later added, 'Whether there's separation or not, you guys are in the White House where you should be, and you're representing our country, and we're bringing religion back to our country, and it's a big deal.' Trump's remarks were celebrated by many more conservative religious leaders, who thanked the president for making more room for religion in the public square. But more liberal people of faith criticized Trump's comments and the new commission, arguing that the president's skepticism about the separation of church and state will hurt religion in the long term. 'Make no mistake, this new commission will do more to increase bullying in schools, workplace conflict, and religious discrimination than it will protect our constitutional rights or our churches,' said the Rev. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, in a statement. The reactions to Trump's remarks should sound familiar if you follow faith-related legal debates. Multiple times in recent years — and multiple times this week — religious freedom advocates in the United States have clashed over what the Constitution says about separating church and state and what role the concept should play in policy debates. So what does the Constitution actually say? It doesn't include the phrase 'separation of church and state,' according to the Freedom Forum. The First Amendment does include the line 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' which bars the government from naming an official religion or otherwise privileging one faith group over another. The First Amendment also protects people of faith with its free exercise clause, which prevents Congress from passing laws that interfere with religious expression. Religious freedom experts generally agree the First Amendment's free exercise and establishment clauses work together to keep the government from disrupting religious people and organizations. Thomas Jefferson said as much in a famous letter to a religious minority group in 1802. 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State,' Jefferson wrote. But religion experts don't agree if the government is supposed to steer clear of religion altogether — or if church-state separation is good for people of faith. That disagreement fuels ongoing conflict over issues like Ten Commandments displays on government property, school vouchers and prayers during government meetings. 'This whole area of law is really a mess,' said an attorney to the Deseret News in 2019 before the Supreme Court heard an establishment clause case. More conservative legal scholars and religious leaders say the establishment clause — and the phrase 'separation of church and state' by extension — only applies to a limited range of issues. They believe government officials can't name a state religion and also can't mandate religious participation, by, for example, forcing Americans to send part of their paychecks to a church. But these more conservative thinkers do not believe the establishment clause justifies other types of limits on church-state relationships, which is why they're typically more supportive than their more liberal colleagues of, among other things, church-state funding partnerships, Christmas displays at statehouses and Trump's approach to religious freedom. More liberal legal scholars and religious leaders, on the other hand, apply the establishment clause more broadly. They typically believe government agencies and officials must avoid even passive endorsement of religious messages, whether it comes in the form of Ten Commandments posters or a state-funded scholarship used at a religious school. The Supreme Court hasn't done much to resolve the tension between those two viewpoints over the years. In the 1970s and 1980s, some justices raised concerns about excessive entanglement between church and state and about government endorsement of religion, lending support to a broader interpretation of the establishment clause. But the related rulings created new issues, since judges across the country disagreed on how to decide if a faith-related display or public prayer had a secular purpose and what a neutral observer would say. More recently, the Supreme Court has embraced a more conservative interpretation of the establishment clause, although they've done so by putting a focus on the free exercise of religion. In three cases in the past eight years, the court has cleared the way for more public money to go to religious schools, with rulings that described policies based on the establishment clause as violations of the free exercise clause, as the Deseret News recently reported. This spring, the Supreme Court has another opportunity to clarify the relationship between church and state in a case focused on the nation's first religious charter school. Oklahoma's Republican attorney general filed the lawsuit to stop the school, which is called St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, from participating in his state's charter school program. He says such a partnership would violate Oklahoma law and the establishment clause. St. Isidore is defending itself with the free exercise clause and the three recent funding rulings. It says Oklahoma's effort to block the formation of religious charter schools amounts to religious discrimination. Religious groups have reacted to the case in much the same way they reacted to Trump's comments on Thursday. Some believe the school clearly violates the principle of church-state separation, while others say Oklahoma has erected a wall that doesn't need to exist. The Trump administration intervened in the case to offer support to the religious charter school. During oral arguments on Wednesday, the justices, for the most part, seemed to sort themselves along the familiar conservative-liberal divide. More liberal justices emphasized potential establishment clause problems, while more conservative justices raised free exercise concerns. Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be the closest to the middle among the eight justices who took part in the arguments. His decision in the case may ultimately determine where the debate over the separation of church and state goes from here.
Newsweek
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Over 14K Sign Christian Petition Issuing Warning on Supreme Court Case
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More than 14,000 people have signed a petition from Christian advocacy group Faithful America in efforts to stress the importance of church-state separation while warning that leaders in Oklahoma aim to "dismantle" that boundary. The push comes amid the Supreme Court weighing whether the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school can legally operate in the Sooner State. "The Supreme Court seems to be open to demolishing the wall between church and state. When public dollars fund religious schools that can discriminate and exclude, we all lose. Our children lose. Our churches lose," the Reverend Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, told Newsweek via email on Friday. Why It Matters The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case centered on St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a proposed K-12 charter that openly states its mission to evangelize students in the Catholic faith. Charter schools are considered public institutions in Oklahoma and nearly every other state, meaning they must abide by state funding and oversight rules. Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, Gentner Drummond, sued Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board to halt creation of the school, arguing it violated Oklahoma law and both the state and U.S. Constitutions. The Supreme Court's ruling could have significant implications for religious liberty and education, potentially opening the door for taxpayer funds to support religious schools. Some conservative Christians back the charter school's case, while others, like Faithful America, which is a progressive Christian organization, are opposing the move. Supporters of charter schools rally outside the Supreme Court on April 30 in Washington, D.C. Supporters of charter schools rally outside the Supreme Court on April 30 in Washington, D.C. AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein What To Know Faithful America, a Christian advocacy group that often shares petitions supporting religious freedom and opposing President Donald Trump, launched one in late April emphasizing that "the separation of church and state is an important legal construct that protects both our democracy and our churches from outside influence." As of Friday, the petition had more than 14,000 signatures and argues that the state's effort to allow a religious charter school represents "an intentional attempt to dismantle this critical separation." "As a Christian and an Oklahoman, I am disgusted that our public education system is being used as a tool for religious indoctrination, especially while schools across Oklahoma are already struggling," Fleck told Newsweek. The state of Oklahoma approved formation of the school in 2023, but the following year, the state Supreme Court ruled it violated the Constitution and blocked the decision. The nation's highest court heard arguments on Wednesday, and Fleck said the justices' commentary serves as an "indication the Supreme Court may be on the verge of abandoning one of the bedrock principles of our democracy." The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national religion and protects individuals' rights to freely practice their faith. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has recused herself due to her friendship with a St. Isidore adviser, and it appears that the court could be divided, with Chief Justice John Roberts potentially casting the deciding vote. "This is a wake-up call for every American who believes that the government should never weaponize faith," Fleck told Newsweek. Supporters of charter schools and Christian education rallied outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday. What People Are Saying The Freedom From Religion Foundation on Friday posted to X, formerly Twitter: "Let's be clear: No one is 'banning Catholic schools.' Religious institutions like St. Isidore are free to exist and educate as they wish — just not on the public's dime." In another post, it wrote that the plaintiffs' demands are "unprecedented: direct government funding of a church-run school that openly admits it will discriminate based on religion, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation." Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during oral arguments: "Using history in this case is crazy because during early history, no one thought there was an obligation of the government to provide funding [for schools] at all. We don't use the history of segregation to interpret the equal protection clause now. I doubt very much we would use that history of the federal government funding the churches to teach Indian children and convert them as proving anything about the free exercise or establishment clause now." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said on Wednesday: "All the religious school is saying is, 'Don't exclude us on account of our religion.' ... Our cases have made very clear—and I think those are some of the most important cases we've had—of saying you can't treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second class in the United States." Drummond said in an October statement: "This unconstitutional scheme to create the nation's first state-sponsored religious charter school will open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan. My fellow Oklahomans can rest assured that I will always fight to protect their God-given rights and uphold the law." Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma's Republican governor, wrote on X last week: "No one should have the authority to tell a parent how to educate their child. St. Isidore has every right to offer families a faith-based education. I'll keep fighting back against big-government politicians who think they know better than parents." What Happens Next The nation's High Court concluded final arguments in the case on Wednesday. It then enters deliberations and typically releases opinions by the end of June. If a split vote occurs, the lower court ruling will stand, effectively blocking St. Isidore from operation as a publicly funded religious charter school.
