Trump to create religious office in White House, target 'anti-Christian bias'.

[PeterPilot]

Protection isn’t the same as establishment

No it isn't, but when one religion is protected while others are attacked, the government has taken a side. It is supposed to be neutral lest the government become a theocracy.

 

[Mashmont]

No it isn't, but when one religion is protected while others are attacked, the government has taken a side. It is supposed to be neutral lest the government become a theocracy.

If you remove Christianity from government, you have atheism by default. That's why the notion of separation of church and state is impossible unless you have an atheist government. And we've seen what a disaster atheist regimes have been. 100 million murdered in the last century.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Where is he favoring Christianity ?? You just answered your pwn question. He created an office to fight anti Christian rhetoric. Not an office to fight ant Islamic Rhetoric . Not and Office to fight Anti Semitism . Not and office to fight anti religious speech in general . Clearly it favors Christianity.

And this is while there is a hell of anti Islamic and Jewish hate speech and very little if any anti christian speech

And what is you point in this "in god we trust " Thing ? You do know that most religions have a god, don't . So no, that is not a first Amendment issue if that is what you're trying to say

Read the act. He talks about the anti Christian acts that biden took.

The cotus says the government can't establish a religion, courts have extended that to also mean they can't "unduly" favor oen religion over the other.

We don't have active anti Islamic actions beig taken by our government and the Jewish faith is closely related to the Christian faith they would be included.

The point about the motto is that, the phrase "in God we trust" was created in reference to the Christian God. Our congress has, at least twice, reaffirmed this motto, and also encourages displaying it in government buildings.

Separation of church and state is misunderstood by a great many people. It was never meant to indicate that religion could not be in government.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Read the act. He talks about the anti Christian acts that biden took.

What are you talking about. ??

 

[ThisIsMe]

What are you talking about. ??

The eo that trump signed. Read it..

As to the rest, what are you unclear about?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The eo that trump signed. Read it..

As to the rest, what are you unclear about?

I am in the process of reading and picking apart the EO

My question is regarding your statement that Biden took anti Christian actions

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Separation of church and state is misunderstood by a great many people. It was never meant to indicate that religion could not be in government.

It's actually very simple if you take the time to research it. The role of religion in government is to be very limited

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another. The Supreme Court has interpreted the clause to mean that the government cannot:

• Establish an official religion
• Compel attendance at a religious institution
• Interfere with a religious organization's selection of clergy or doctrine
• Provide benefits to some religious entities and not others without adequate justification

The Supreme Court has used the "Lemon test" to determine whether the government's actions violate the Establishment Clause. The Lemon test has three parts:

• The government's assistance must have a secular primary purpose.
• The government's assistance must not promote or inhibit religion.
• There must not be excessive entanglement between church and state.

Interpretation: The Establishment Clause | Constitution Center​

Interpretations of The Establishment Clause by constitutional scholars
constitutioncenter.org

 

[Zincwarrior]

If you remove Christianity from government,

How does a government have religion?

 

[Mashmont]

How does a government have religion?

Many government laws have Christian principles. Remove those and you have an atheist government. Nobody wants that.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Many government laws have Christian principles. Remove those and you have an atheist government. Nobody wants that.

Blue laws have little support in Texas. What Federal laws are 'Christian?'

 

[Mashmont]

Blue laws have little support in Texas. What Federal laws are 'Christian?'

Many laws embrace Christian teaching. The Mexico City Policy for example. Democrats who remove it are promoting an atheist policy.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Many laws embrace Christian teaching. The Mexico City Policy for example.

Sorry whats that?

 

[Mashmont]

Sorry whats that?

Something for you to look up.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The eo that trump signed. Read it..

Please see my notes below:

Establishment of The White House Faith Office

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to assist faith-based entities,

www.whitehouse.gov

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to assist faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship in their efforts to strengthen American families, promote work and self-sufficiency, and protect religious liberty, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Policy. Faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship have tremendous ability to serve individuals, families, and communities through means that are different from those of government and with capacity and effectiveness that often exceeds that of government. These organizations lift people up, keep families strong, and solve problems at the local level. The executive branch wants faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to compete on a level playing field for grants, contracts, programs, and other Federal funding opportunities. The efforts of faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship are essential to strengthening families and revitalizing communities, and the Federal Government welcomes opportunities to partner with such organizations through innovative, measurable, and outcome-driven initiatives.

The executive branch is committed to ensuring that all executive departments and agencies (agencies) honor and enforce the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty and to ending any form of religious discrimination by the Federal Government.

Note: The above section is rather neutral and not objectionable at all. There is no obvious religious favoritism

Sec. 2. Amendments to Executive Orders. (a) Executive Order 13198 of January 29, 2001 (Agency Responsibilities With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives); Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), as amended by Executive Order 13559 of November 17, 2010 (Fundamental Principles and Policymaking Criteria for Partnerships With Faith-Based and Other Neighborhood Organizations); Executive Order 13280 of December 12, 2002 (Responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture and the Agency for International Development With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives); Executive Order 13342 of June 1, 2004 (Responsibilities of the Departments of Commerce and Veterans Affairs and the Small Business Administration With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives); and Executive Order 13397 of March 7, 2006 (Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), are hereby amended by:
(i) substituting “White House Faith Office” for “White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives” or “White House OFBCI” each time it appears in those orders; and
(ii) substituting “Center for Faith” for “Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives,” and “Centers for Faith” for “Centers for Faith-based and Community Initiatives” each time they appear in those orders.
(b) Executive Order 13279, as amended by Executive Order 13559, is further amended by striking section 2(h) and redesignating sections 2(i) and 2(j) as sections 2(h) and 2(i), respectively.

Note: Many of those Eos referenced were issued by Obama or his predecessor and just seem to change the terminology. I am not going to resarch them

Sec. 3. Establishment of the White House Faith Office. (a) There is established within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) the White House Faith Office (Office). The Office shall have lead responsibility in the executive branch to empower faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to serve families and communities.
(b) The Office shall be housed in the Domestic Policy Council and headed by a Senior Advisor to the White House Faith Office, and supported by other positions as the President considers appropriate. In carrying out this order, the Office shall work with the Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Public Liaison, and the Centers for Faith established by Executive Order 13198, Executive Order 13280, Executive Order 13342, and Executive Order 13397, as amended by section 2(a)(ii) of this order.

Note: There is a good deal of flowery language here . While there is still no overt hint of religious favoritism , here as in previous sections , the real test will be in whether or not it’s applied evenly in reality. From here on, my concerns are in bold

Sec. 4. White House Faith Office Functions. (a) To the extent permitted by law, the Office shall:
(i) from time to time, consult with and seek information from experts and various faith and community leaders identified by the White House Faith Office and other EOP components, including those from outside the Federal Government and those from State, local, and Tribal governments. These experts and leaders shall be identified based on their expertise in a broad range of areas in which faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship operate, including protecting women and children; strengthening marriage and family; lifting up individuals through work and self-sufficiency, defending religious liberty; combating anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and additional forms of anti-religious bias; promoting foster care and adoption programs in partnership with faith-based entities; providing wholesome and effective education; preventing and reducing crime and facilitating prisoner reentry; promoting recovery from substance use disorder; and fostering flourishing minds;
(ii) make recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, regarding changes to policies, programs, and practices, and aspects of my Administration’s policy agenda, that affect the ability of faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to serve families and communities;
(iii) convene meetings with representatives from the Centers for Faith and other representatives from across agencies as appropriate;
(iv) advise on the implementation throughout the Federal Government of those aspects of my Administration’s policy agenda aimed at enabling faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to better serve families and communities;
(v) showcase innovative initiatives by faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship that serve and strengthen individuals, families, and communities throughout the United States;
(vi) coordinate with all agencies to implement training and education throughout the country for faith-based entity grantees to build their capacity to procure grants;
(vii) support agencies in developing and implementing training and education regarding religious liberty exceptions, accommodations, or exemptions;
(viii) consult with public and private businesses regarding their policies for employee volunteerism, charitable giving, and payroll deductions;
(ix) coordinate with agencies on identifying and promoting grant opportunities for non-profit faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship, especially those inexperienced with public funding but that operate effective programs;
(x) work in collaboration with the Attorney General, or a designee of the Attorney General, to identify concerns raised by faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship about any failures of the executive branch to enforce constitutional and Federal statutory protections for religious liberty; and
(xi) identify and propose means to reduce burdens on the free exercise of religion, including legislative, regulatory, and other barriers to the full and active participation of faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship in government-funded or government-conducted activities and programs.
(b) Agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide such information, support, and assistance to the Office as may assist the Office in fulfilling this order.
(c) The Directors of each Center of Faith shall oversee their respective agency’s efforts to assist the Office in carrying out this order, and shall report on such efforts to agency leadership and the Office. Agencies that lack a Center for Faith shall designate or appoint a Faith Liaison within the agency to oversee the agency’s efforts to assist the Office in carrying out this order and to report on such efforts to agency leadership and the Office. All such agencies shall designate or appoint such a Faith Liaison within 90 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Note: Beginning in section 4 we begin to get deep into the woods with vague language and room for interpretation. As with previous sections, the real test will be how it is applied, and who is effected by it in the real world. While for the most part it is not blatantly unconstitutional on it’s face, there is plenty of cause for concern when read in relation to what we know about this administrations policies and priorities. And lets not forget, Mr. Trump did say out loud that the purpose of the order is to combat anti Christian bias.

Here is a line by line summary of concerns some hints as what to watch as this policy is implemented:

“including protecting women and children; strengthening marriage and family; lifting up individuals through work and self-sufficiency, defending religious liberty; combatting anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and additional forms of anti-religious bias; promoting foster care and adoption programs in partnership with faith-based entities”

This immediately raised a lot of red flags considering Trumps track record in the area of protecting women, his position on marriage and family, his interpretation of religious liberty . Will he protect women from draconian state laws that take away their reproductive freedom? I don’t think so. Will he promote foster care and adoption programs that serve the interests and needs of LGBT children or that of the LGBT families who seek to adopt? Again I don’t think so. In fact his well known views of religious liberty indicates that exact opposite

Perhaps the most disturbing passage in this section is the reference combatting anti-Semitic, anti-Christian bias, to the exclusion of any mention of Islam or other religions. ( Although in fairness he does add and additional forms of anti-religious bias)

Other concerns include:

• The reference to “policies programs and practices that effect the ability of faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to serve families and communities is also of concern for the same reasons cited above. This could easily be interpreted to be an endorsement of religious discrimination against certain groups by those religious entities
• Regarding the passage, “support agencies in developing and implementing training and education regarding religious liberty exceptions, accommodations, or exemptions” I am concerned that the not so subtle intent here is to give broad latitude to those who would discriminate in places of public accommodation

• Then there is this “identify concerns raised by faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship about any failures of the executive branch to enforce constitutional and Federal statutory protections for religious liberty” and to reduce burdens on the free exercise of religion. Of concern here is , once again, Trumps interpretation of religious liberty and what he believes that religious organizations can do in the name of religious liberty.
• I have to conclude that the EO can best be described as a wolf in sheep’s clothing the protection of religious liberty Is a one way street aimed at protecting religious community while leaving vulnerable, those who might be oppressed but religion
  
  
  

 

[ThisIsMe]

I am in the process of reading and picking apart the EO

My question is regarding your statement that Biden took anti Christian actions

No, I said the EO trump wrote was regarding anti Christian stances that biden had.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's actually very simple if you take the time to research it. The role of religion in government is to be very limited

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another. The Supreme Court has interpreted the clause to mean that the government cannot:

• Establish an official religion
• Compel attendance at a religious institution
• Interfere with a religious organization's selection of clergy or doctrine
• Provide benefits to some religious entities and not others without adequate justification

The Supreme Court has used the "Lemon test" to determine whether the government's actions violate the Establishment Clause. The Lemon test has three parts:

• The government's assistance must have a secular primary purpose.
• The government's assistance must not promote or inhibit religion.
• There must not be excessive entanglement between church and state.

Interpretation: The Establishment Clause | Constitution Center​

Interpretations of The Establishment Clause by constitutional scholars
constitutioncenter.org

Lemon doesn't apply here because nobody is creating any laws, and there is no excessive government entanglement. If you read the EO, while he does talk about the recent anti Christian sentiment, he also talks about how our cotus provides religious freedom to all religions.

Also, the establishment clause doesn't specifically say "cannot favor one religion over the other", that was an interpretation added later. While I agree that government shouldn't favor one religion over the other, this EO was broad in scope, but did focus on the anti Christian sentiment which has pervaded our country recently.

I don't see any excessive entanglement here

 

[ThisIsMe]

Please see my notes below:

Establishment of The White House Faith Office

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to assist faith-based entities,

www.whitehouse.gov

Note: There is a good deal of flowery language here . While there is still no overt hint of religious favoritism , here as in previous sections , the real test will be in whether or not it’s applied evenly in reality. From here on, my concerns are in bold



Note: Beginning in section 4 we begin to get deep into the woods with vague language and room for interpretation. As with previous sections, the real test will be how it is applied, and who is effected by it in the real world. While for the most part it is not blatantly unconstitutional on it’s face, there is plenty of cause for concern when read in relation to what we know about this administrations policies and priorities. And lets not forget, Mr. Trump did say out loud that the purpose of the order is to combat anti Christian bias.

Here is a line by line summary of concerns some hints as what to watch as this policy is implemented:

“including protecting women and children; strengthening marriage and family; lifting up individuals through work and self-sufficiency, defending religious liberty; combatting anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and additional forms of anti-religious bias; promoting foster care and adoption programs in partnership with faith-based entities”

This immediately raised a lot of red flags considering Trumps track record in the area of protecting women, his position on marriage and family, his interpretation of religious liberty . Will he protect women from draconian state laws that take away their reproductive freedom? I don’t think so. Will he promote foster care and adoption programs that serve the interests and needs of LGBT children or that of the LGBT families who seek to adopt? Again I don’t think so. In fact his well known views of religious liberty indicates that exact opposite

Perhaps the most disturbing passage in this section is the reference combatting anti-Semitic, anti-Christian bias, to the exclusion of any mention of Islam or other religions. ( Although in fairness he does add and additional forms of anti-religious bias)

Other concerns include:

• The reference to “policies programs and practices that effect the ability of faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to serve families and communities is also of concern for the same reasons cited above. This could easily be interpreted to be an endorsement of religious discrimination against certain groups by those religious entities
• 
  
• Regarding the passage, “support agencies in developing and implementing training and education regarding religious liberty exceptions, accommodations, or exemptions” I am concerned that the not so subtle intent here is to give broad latitude to those who would discriminate in places of public accommodation

• Then there is this “identify concerns raised by faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship about any failures of the executive branch to enforce constitutional and Federal statutory protections for religious liberty” and to reduce burdens on the free exercise of religion. Of concern here is , once again, Trumps interpretation of religious liberty and what he believes that religious organizations can do in the name of religious liberty.
• I have to conclude that the EO can best be described as a wolf in sheep’s clothing the protection of religious liberty Is a one way street aimed at protecting religious community while leaving vulnerable, those who might be oppressed but religion
  
  

Correct, he does say "other forms.." this would include regions.


No, his EO will not affect abortion. If your state does not allow abortion, then it is up to the citizens of that state to petition their state elected officials to change their laws.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, I said the EO trump wrote was regarding anti Christian stances that biden had.

And you still have not explained what those allegedly anti Christian stances were

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Correct, he does say "other forms.." this would include regions.


No, his EO will not affect abortion. If your state does not allow abortion, then it is up to the citizens of that state to petition their state elected officials to change their laws.

Abortion? That's it? That is all you have to say in response to my extensive analysis of the EO?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Lemon doesn't apply here because nobody is creating any laws, and there is no excessive government entanglement. If you read the EO, while he does talk about the recent anti Christian sentiment, he also talks about how our cotus provides religious freedom to all religions.

Wrong! It's a government action which is withing the meaning of the interpretation of the amendment