Will the NRA Meltdown Aid Democrats and Gun Control?

On Tuesday the Virginia General Assembly will open a special session to address the issue of enacting common sense gun control.  It is a near guarantee that most Republicans in both houses of the General Assembly will continue their slavish self-prostitution to the NRA and gun industry.  Thus, the question of the hour will be whether the NRA's current upheaval and financial meltdown might embolden a few Republicans to reach across the aisle to join Democrats in at last updating Virginia's abysmal gun laws. At the national level, a feeble NRA could harm the re-election efforts of Donald Trump and far right Republicans. For those who care about gun control and responsible government in general, the NRA's troubles are most welcome.  A piece in Politico looks at the ongoing turmoil and possible consequences.  Here are highlights: 

The National Rifle Association aired an avalanche of TV ads and pushed its 5 million-plus members to the polls for Donald Trump in 2016, propelling him in the Rust Belt states that delivered him the presidency.

Now, the gun rights group is in total meltdown — and senior Republicans and Trump 2020 officials are alarmed.

In recent weeks, the NRA has seen everything from a failed coup attempt to the departure of its longtime political architect to embarrassing tales of self-dealing by top leaders. The turmoil is fueling fears that the organization will be profoundly diminished heading into the election, leaving the Republican Party with a gaping hole in its political machinery.

With the Chamber of Commerce and Koch political network withdrawing from their once-dominant roles in electing conservatives, Republicans worry that three organizations that have long formed the core of their electoral infrastructure will be effectively on the sidelines.

The predicament has so troubled some Republicans that they are calling on the famously secretive NRA to address its 2020 plans. Within the past week, senators have privately expressed concerns about the group to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Todd Young.

With the organization mired in palace intrigue and confronting a daily barrage of negative publicity, some NRA officials are skeptical a 2020 plan will emerge. Many Republicans are convinced the job of turning out Second Amendment supporters will fall to the cash-flush Republican National Committee, which is constructing a massive get-out-the-vote and data machine devoted to turning out conservatives. Jane Timken, chairwoman of the Ohio GOP, said her organization would work closely with the RNC to microtarget firearm owners. The national party, Timken noted, has compiled extensive voter data through sources ranging from gun licenses to gun magazine subscriptions.

Concerns over the NRA intensified last week after the resignation of Chris Cox, who had been the head of its lobbying arm since 2002. . . . . With Cox gone, it's an open question who will oversee the NRA’s 2020 strategy.  “Chris Cox is the guy everybody dealt with,” said Steven Law, president of the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely aligned with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The organization's troubles are hard to overstate. The most serious threat is an investigation by New York state attorney general's office into its tax-exempt status. In April, NRA President Oliver North was ousted in an ugly public spectacle in which he declared the group was in a "clear crisis." News organizations have also reported that NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre used $275,000 of the group's money to buy luxury clothes at Zegna in Beverly Hills, Calif., and that the organization logged tens of thousands of dollars in other expenses that benefited its officials.

Trump weighed in on the NRA's problems Tuesday morning, tweeting that the group is a "victim" of "political harassment by New York State and Governor Cuomo."

Issues surrounding the Republican Party's outside infrastructure go beyond the NRA. The Chamber of Commerce, a key player in Republican politics over the past decade, spent just $10 million during the 2018 cycle, about a third of what it spent during the previous election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The scale back has led many to believe the organization, a staple of the business community, is preparing to play a diminished role in 2020.

Meanwhile, the Koch network is gradually shifting away from partisanship and toward policy issues like addressing poverty and drug addiction. The network, which like the Chamber has at times found itself at odds with the president, plans to sit out the 2020 presidential race and is recasting itself in a nonpartisan fashion.

The uncertainty surrounding all three groups is likely to increase pressure on America First Action, a super PAC devoted to backing Trump.

Should Anti-Gay Catholic Schools Lose Taxpayer Funding?

Anti-gay Archbishop Charles C. Thompson.

A recent blog post looked at a case where a Jesuit run high school in Indiana defied the dictates of the anti-gay diocesan archbishop who ordered a gay teacher in a same sex marriage be fired. Since the school is operated b the Jesuit order, it is technically not under the thumb of the bigoted local archbishop.  Other Catholic schools in the diocese are not so lucky and in the case of Cathedral High School in Indianapolis, the school administration knuckled under to the bishop's demands and fired a gay teacher. That action has lead to protests outside the archdiocese's offices and now, some members of the state legislature want the schools to lose taxpayer funding under a principle that to me and many others is very simple: if you tax taxpayer money, you do not get to discriminate against any segment of the taxpaying public.  It is the same theory that has seen Catholic adoption and foster agencies in other states lose funding due to their refusal to not discriminate against gays and non-Catholics.  A piece in the Indianapolis Star looks at the controversy and why taking taxpayer funding from Catholic schools in Indiana is justified.  Here are highlights:

When Cathedral High School fired a gay teacher last week over his same-sex marriage, it renewed a long-simmering debate about public money that goes to private schools in the form of taxpayer-funded scholarships.

The school, which has said it was forced by the Archdiocese of Indianapolis to terminate the teacher or lose its status as a Catholic institution, has received more than $6 million from the state over the last six years through Indiana’s “choice scholarship” program.

Indiana began offering “choice scholarships” in 2011 to help low-income families afford a private education. It’s now the country’s largest such voucher program, directing more than $134 million to private schools last year.

“Again, we see a public institution engaged in an obvious act of discrimination because of sexual identity,” said Democratic Rep. Phil GiaQuinta, Indiana’s House minority leader, “but we do not have to sit by and watch this happen.  “I do not feel that the people of Indiana should be financially supporting discrimination against faculty, staff or students at any school.”

Last year, the case of a gay guidance counselor losing her job at Roncalli High School because of her same-sex marriage led to calls for anti-discrimination strings on voucher money.

Several lawmakers filed bills that would have required private schools that participate in the state’s voucher program to have non-discriminatory hiring practices in place. Those efforts failed, though.

With a supermajority in both chambers of the Statehouse, Republicans can block any legislation they choose. As recently as last week, House Speaker Brian Bosma said he continues to support the voucher program, as is. At that time, Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray declined to comment.

Supporters of the program in its current form argue that putting restrictions on the practices of participating schools would harm the “uniqueness” of those institutions, the vast majority of which are religious.

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis is one of the largest benefactors of the program. The 67 schools under the purview of the archdiocese that participated last year received close to $40 million from the state. If they made up a public school district, it would be in the top 50 for receiving state funds, out of about 300.

The archdiocese began requiring all contracts to include the “morality clause” four years ago. It was extended to independent Catholic schools, like Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School and Cathedral, two years ago. Gina Fleming, superintendent of Catholic schools for the archdiocese, said similar language was in place even before the current language was mandated.

That’s the language that led Cathedral to fire one of its teachers who is in a same-sex marriage. Brebeuf refused to fire a gay teacher in a same-sex marriage. The Indianapolis archdiocese is no longer recognizing Brebeuf as a Catholic school.

Brebeuf has received more than $1.7 million in the last six years through the voucher program. Roncalli, where two gay guidance counselors have now filed discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has received more than $8 million.

The issue has split the Catholic community in Indianapolis. While many parishioners are backing the church, others are outraged at what they see as a targeting of gay people. More than 200 Cathedral students and alumni protested in front of the archdiocese last week, urging Archbishop Charles C. Thompson to reconsider the prohibition of gay married people working in Catholic schools.

Cardinal Ritter and Scecina Memorial, two other high schools within the archdiocese, are among the top voucher-receiving private schools in the state. Each has taken in more than $9 million since 2013. During that same period, schools within the Archdiocese of Indianapolis have received a total nearly $190 million.

$190 million in taxpayer funding - on top of the institutions receiving tax-exempt status which means they are being indirectly funded by the taxpaying public as well.  The irony is that without the ability to gorge themselves at the taxpayer money trough, a number of these discriminatory schools would go out of business because many in the public don't want the bigotry and embrace of ignorance they are peddling. One can only hope that in time Democrats gain enough seats to reverse this outrageous program.

Hate Groups Launch Deceptive Campaign Targeting Gay Parents

As numerous posts have noted, evangelical Christians and hate groups that they sponsor believe that they should be exempt from compliance with non-discrimination laws.  Stated another way, they deem themselves above the laws that bind all other citizens. They believe that their beliefs - all based on Bronze Age myths and legends - put them above the law.   Nowhere is this phenomenon more true than in the context of their relentless campaign against LGBT citizens and the demand that their organizations be either (i) directly funded by grants of taxpayer funds, or (ii) indirectly funded by all citizens through grants of tax exempt status.  Thus, here in Virginia and elsewhere, Christofascist adoption agencies want to receive outright state funding yet be free to discriminate against selective taxpayers.  Worse yet, their disingenuously claim that children will be harmed if they are required to comply with non-discrimination laws.  A piece in LGBTQ Nation looks at a new insidious campaign to fool the public in order to all hate groups to receive taxpayer funding.  Here are excerpts: 

Anti-LGBTQ and conservative groups seem to be stepping up efforts to undermine gay adoption and gay families via a website pushing a deceptive campaign.

Groups such as the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, the Alliance Defending Freedom [the FRC and ADF are certified hate groups], and a few others have been steadily making the case that faith-based foster care and adoption agencies which refuse to work with gay couples should still receive tax dollars. A few states, such Oklahoma and Kansas, have passed legislation saying so.

Other municipalities, such as Philadelphia, however have made it clear that tax dollars shouldn’t go to entities which discriminate for any reason. And Philadelphia won in court on that premise.

Now a website sponsored by the groups makes the case for tax dollars going to discriminatory agencies. The website and hashtag #keepkidsfirst claims that children will suffer if faith-based adoption and foster care agencies are made to follow civil rights laws.

The website is built on the dishonest premise that some people, particularly the LGBTQ community, are attempting to shut down faith-based adoption and foster care agencies. In reality, the central argument is simple – if these agencies want to discriminate against the LGBTQ community, they shouldn’t be allowed to do so while receiving tax dollars.

By keeping the plight of children needing adoption in the forefront, the sponsors of the website hope to draw attention away from its darker aspects – undermining adoption laws and the dignity of LGBTQ taxpayers.

They are attempting to force an unfair choice on the LGBTQ community. Do we choose our dignity as taxpayers over children or children over our dignity as taxpayers?
It’s an unfair choice. In fact, it shouldn’t even be a choice put upon the heads of the LGBTQ community.

It has been proven time and time again that same-sex households are wonderful places to raise children and we make great parents.  If religious foster care and adoption agencies choose to ignore this, that is their right.

What they are doing is wrong because for all of their bluster about providing children with good homes, they are deliberately ignoring good homes. And the LGBTQ community shouldn’t be forced to surrender our hard earned tax dollars to promote their prejudices.

Furthermore, it is extremely sleazy that groups like the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, and the Alliance Defending Freedom are again exploiting children as shields to make their homophobia seem more palpable.

When one takes into account their extensive history of pushing anti-LGBTQ laws, promoting anti-LGBTQ prejudices, and generally making life hell for the LGBTQ community, their so-called concern about children is merely a smokescreen for more of their bigotry.

Personally, I would end all direct state funding to such groups and go further and end tax-exempt status for all churches and religious organization. 

Evangelical Christians Have Tossed Away Christ's Teachings

For those who continue to try to convince themselves that Christianity is a positive force in the world - a belief I do not share - a new “The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel” released by a group of evangelical and right wing "Christians" will make this pretense/mental contortions even more difficult.  In it, these modern day Pharisees claim that social justice - feeding the hungry, caring for the homeless, tending the sick has no direct connection the Gospel message.  As is so often the case, inconvenient passages are utterly ignored while a selective fixation on a few Old Testament passages that allow condemnation of others are upheld.  The hypocrisy is off the charts and explains the accelerating exodus from Christianity.  Conservative columnist Michael Gerson bemoans this latest evidence of the reality that conservative Christianity is a blight on mankind (my words, not his).  Here are excepts:

“The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel” claims that social justice is not, in fact, a definitional component of the gospel, and that it is heresy to elevate “non-essentials to the status of essentials.” As you might expect, the document affirms traditional beliefs on same-sex relationships and “God-ordained” gender roles. But it seems particularly focused on rejecting collective blame in racial matters.

By way of background, it seems this statement was created in outraged response to another group of evangelical Christians — the Gospel Coalition — that held a conference on the 50th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. MacArthur clearly wants to paint the participants — including prominent pastors Tim Keller, Russell Moore, Thabiti Anyabwile and John Piper — as liberals at risk of heresy.

Where to start a response? First, there is the matter of judgment. MacArthur surveys the evangelical movement in 2018 — increasingly discredited by rank hypocrisy and close ties to an angry, ethnonationalist political movement — and concludes that its main problem is too much . . . social justice. It is a sad case of complete spiritual blindness.

Second, there is a matter of history. . . . This could be claimed only by someone who knows nothing of the evangelical story. During the 19th century, Northern evangelicalism was generally viewed as inseparable from social activism. Evangelist Charles Finney insisted that “the loss of interest in benevolent enterprises” was usually evidence of a “backslidden heart.” Among these enterprises, Finney listed good government, temperance reform, the abolition of slavery and relief for the poor.

But most damaging is the Mac­Arthur statement’s position on racial matters. What could a group of largely white evangelicals, many of them Southerners, possibly mean by criticizing “racial vainglory”? Is it vanity to praise the unbroken spirit of Africans in America during more than four centuries of vicious oppression, which was often blessed by elements of the Christian church? Is it vanity to recognize the redemptive role played by African American Christianity in calling our nation to the highest ideals of its founding?

The purpose of “The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel” is clear enough. It is, as one prominent evangelical leader put it to me, “to stop any kind of real repentance for past social injustice, to make space for those who are indeed ethnonationalists, and to give excuse for those who feel Christians need only ‘preach the gospel’ to save souls and not love their neighbors sacrificially whether they believe as we do or not.”

The MacArthur statement is designed to support not a gospel truth but a social myth. The United States, the myth goes, used to have systematic discrimination, but that ended with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Racism is now purely an individual issue, for which the good people should not be blamed. This narrative has nothing to do with true religion. It has everything to do with ignorant self-satisfaction.

It is neither realistic nor fair to ignore the continuing social effects of hundreds of years of state-sponsored oppression, cruelty and stolen wages. It is neither realistic nor fair to ignore the current damage of mass incarceration and failed educational institutions on minority groups. Prejudice and institutional evil are ongoing — deeply ingrained in social practice and ratified by indifference. Repentance is in order — along with a passion for social justice that is inseparable from the Christian gospel.

If it were up to me, churches - and all religious structures of every faith - would lose tax-exempt status and be taxed like any other business organization.  Churches that could not survive without forced subsidies from taxpayers would close and those that had a marketable message would survive. 

Trump Warns Evangelicals of "Violence" if GOP Loses in Midterms, and Lies to Them

Trump and Christian extremist leaders at the White House.

Donald Trump was back in Adolph Hitler mode as he addressed a who's who of evangelical Christian extremists and parasitic "professional Christians" such as Franklin Graham and white supremacist loving Tony Perkins.  Specifically, Trump seemed to be messaging to his base that violence would be appropriate against liberals and Democrats if Republican candidates lose significantly in the 2018 midterm elections. In one of his typical lies, Trump attributed to liberals and Democrats that has been consistently engaged in by the far right of the GOP Base.  The second big lie was that even as Trump was de facto encouraging violence, he lied to the Christofascists at the gather when he claimed to have changed laws that restrict churches from engaging in politically partisan election activities. Trump neither rescinded the so-called Johnson Amendment nor does he have the power to do so.  His knuckle dragging, spittle flecked and hate-filled audience nonetheless ate up the lie.  CNN looks at Trump's warnings of violence.  Here are excerpts:

President Donald Trump, facing scrutiny for hush money payments to a porn star and a former Playboy model, pleaded with evangelical leaders for political help during closed-door remarks on Monday, warning of dire consequences to their congregations should Republicans lose in November's midterm elections.

"This November 6 election is very much a referendum on not only me, it's a referendum on your religion, it's a referendum on free speech and the First Amendment. It's a referendum on so much," Trump told the assemblage of pastors and other Christian leaders gathered in the State Dining Room, according to a recording from people in the room. "It's not a question of like or dislike, it's a question that they will overturn everything that we've done and they will do it quickly and violently. And violently. There is violence. . . . "You have tremendous power. You were saying, in this room, you have people who preach to almost 200 million people. Depending on which Sunday we're talking about."
 But inviting the leaders to the White House only days after [Trump] the President was newly implicated by his longtime personal lawyer's guilty plea underscored the degree to which Trump is trying to keep his supporters on his side.
 "You have to hopefully get out and get people to support us," Trump said. "If you don't, that will be the beginning of ending everything that you've gotten." The remarks from an attendee's recording offered a more dire view of the upcoming vote than Trump has projected in public. He often trumpets an upcoming "red wave" of Republican victories, downplaying suggestions that Democrats are poised to exploit his divisiveness and retake the House or Senate.
 Trump didn't mention a "red wave" on Monday, instead acknowledging that midterms often present new presidents with a turnout challenge. . . . there's a real question as to whether people are going to vote if I'm not on the ballot. And I'm not on the ballot."  That's a problem Trump said the evangelical leaders could help solve by galvanizing their congregations and followers to vote.

The New York Times described the event as Trump's "attempt to use the specter of violence at the hands of his political opponents and to fan the flames of cultural divisions in the country."  As noted, at this gathering of the leaders of the American Taliban, Trump boasted about changes in the law that he has not made and lacks the power to make.  NBC News looks at Trump's deliberate lies to the assembled Christofascists.  Here are highlights:

In a closed-door meeting with evangelical leaders Monday night, President Donald Trump repeated his debunked claim that he had gotten "rid of" a law forbidding churches and charitable organizations from endorsing political candidates, according to recorded excerpts reviewed by NBC News.

In fact, the law remains on the books, after efforts to kill it in Congress last year failed.

But Trump cited this alleged accomplishment as one in a series of gains he has made for his conservative Christian supporters, as he warned, "You're one election away from losing everything that you've got," and said their opponents were "violent people" who would overturn these gains "violently."

Trump addressed the law and the upcoming midterms in private remarks Monday during a dinner with evangelical supporters at the White House after the press had left.

The law that Trump says he got rid of is the so-called Johnson Amendment, a provision inserted into law in 1954 by then-senator and future President Lyndon Johnson of Texas, who was miffed that a conservative nonprofit group was helping his opponent.

The law says churches and charities "are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

"Now one of the things I'm most proud of is getting rid of the Johnson Amendment," the president said. "That was a disaster for you."

The president doesn't have the power to repeal a law — only Congress can do that. The Supreme Court can also rule a law unconstitutional, but that has not happened in this case.

In May 2017, Trump signed an executive order that purported to ease enforcement of the Johnson Amendment. But experts — and the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes repeal of the provision — say the Trump order was basically toothless.
In other words, religious organizations can express their religious views, as they always could — but still cannot formally participate in political campaigns.

Trump/Sessions Seek to End Zoning Regulations for Religious Institutions

One reason why evangelical Christians have prostituted themselves and supported Donald Trump even though Trump represents just about everything a true Christian should oppose and condemn is that in June, 2016, Trump promised evangelical "leaders - many are in actuality scamvangelists and/or hate group leaders - that if elected, he would put them above the laws that bind the rest of society. Trump/Pence regime efforts to roll back LGBT rights and legalize anti-gay discrimination have been part of the delivery on Trump's promise.  Now, we see Jeff Sessions announcing a crack down on cities that impose normal restrictions on churches and religious institutions.  Typically, zoning ordinances are aimed at avoiding the location of incompatible uses adjacent to each other, minimum lot sizes and building set back requirements, minimum parking facility requirements to avoid undue burdens on adjoining streets, and numerous other common sense restrictions.  Such restrictions that apply to all kinds of business and property uses apparently are objectionable to the "godly folks" who believe that general zoning regulations - and a host of other laws - should not apply to them.  CNN looks at this latest effort to grant special rights to religious extremists: 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced an initiative on Wednesday aimed at boosting the Justice Department's role protecting religious institutions from cumbersome zoning rules.

"Under the laws of this country, government cannot discriminate against people based on their religion -- not in law enforcement, not in grant-making, not in hiring and not in local zoning laws," Sessions said in a statement announcing the Place to Worship Initiative. The announcement said the Justice Department would expand awareness of a 2000 law to shield religious institutions from overly restrictive zoning regulations and would provide "additional training and resources for federal prosecutors," with an inaugural community outreach event in New Jersey later this month. The planned event in New Jersey would come after the Justice Department also announced on Wednesday it was bringing a complaint under that 2000 law against the New Jersey borough Woodcliff Lake and Woodcliff Lake's zoning board of adjustment. The initiative announced on Wednesday marked another step by Sessions to steer the power of the department toward religious organizations and individuals. Last fall, Sessions announced sweeping guidance on religious liberty protections, and the Justice Department under his leadership took the side of a cake shop owner who cited religion when refusing to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker earlier this month.

One of my personal pet peeves is churches that are allowed to ignore "no parking" restrictions on Sundays and, as a result create unsafe driving conditions for through traffic on arterial highways. The need for such abuses is the result of zoning ordinances that do not require churches to have adequate parking spaces on their property.  

Churches sadly more often that not deliver much less in charitably services to communities in comparison to the tax drain they cause due to their (in my view) tax-exempt status.  Stated another way, churches do no pay their own way in terms of municipal services and the rest of the citizenry is forced to subsidize their often divisive dogma.  Now, they want to be able to ignore even zoning ordinance restrictions.   

Catholic Church Hypocrisy on Church Sponsored Anti-LGBT Animus

One hears over and over about the supposed anti-Christian discrimination fostered by LGBT rights organizations and laws enacted to prevent anti-LGBT discrimination.  Anything that limits the ability of Christofascists and Catholic extremists to discriminate against gays - or other targets of hatred such as divorced Catholics, cohabitating unmarried couples, women using contraception, and, of course, non-Christians - is shrilly denounced as anti-Christian or anti-Catholic persecution.  Lost in the equation is that due to (in my view, improper) the tax-exempt status of churches, in reality all members of society are being forced to indirectly financially underwrite denominations that target them for hatred and discrimination.  This is NOT what the Founding Fathers contemplated when they drafted the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Indeed, it is precisely what they sought to avoid.  A piece in the Louisville Courier Journal takes to task  Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz for his blindness and hypocrisy on this issue.  Here are column excerpts:

I would like to point out in response to Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz in his recent essay published in Courier Journal that his institution and his faith do not need a “First Amendment Defense Act” to protect his ability or the ability of the Catholic Church in America to pass down their beliefs to the children. 

Not a single law in this country blocks them from doing so. And not a single person in this country can do that either. Within the Church institution, gay marriage can be forbidden and women’s reproductive choices curtailed. The Church can even work to protect pedophile priests from prosecution by moving them out of the country, as was reported in USA Today in February of 2016.

However, the Catholic Church uses government grants and tax dollars to do all of this, which means that my tax dollars are funding the Catholic Church’s internal theological prohibitions and practices. My right not to pay taxes to prop up religious beliefs, practices and opinions is violated every day. Now we see the lobbying hand is out for tax credits (vouchers) to help fund religious schools.

No, Kurtz, it is not your rights or your Church’s that are in jeopardy. The danger is that my and every taxpayer in this nation’s rights are being eroded, and this has been going on for a long time.

The major problem we all face is that the Church is not satisfied with just blocking civil rights within its walls. The Catholic Church funneled millions of tax-free dollars from dioceses, the Council of Bishops and offshoot Catholic groups like the Knights of Columbus to block gay marriage laws in various areas of the country before the Supreme Court finally ruled gay marriage as civil right. Catholic-owned hospitals, which receive millions in tax dollars, block non-Catholic women and men from receiving legal reproductive health care every day.

More than 60 percent of the budget of Catholic Charities comes from government grants. But the federal and state governments are not allowed to oversee how that money is spent. There are more than 200 tax exemption laws on the books that cover religious institutions. I’d say the Church in America is certainly experiencing government favoritism rather than discrimination.

Freedom to practice religion, to hold religious beliefs, and to pass them down to the next generation is alive and safe in this county. But "freedom of religion” does not mean that religious opinions are protected from scrutiny, doubt and even condemnation when offered in the public arena. It does not mean that bullying gays should be protected by some ridiculous “amendment’. 

It does not mean that legal medical procedures, treatments and medications should be withheld from people who do not share the same religious beliefs. It does not mean that the civil right to participate in marriage should be blocked. It does not mean that public businesses can discriminate against anyone who seeks their services or products. There is discrimination going on here, but Kurtz is not recognizing the source of it.

We should talk about the “dignity of every human being.” We should also talk about what that actually means. And, we should talk about the rampant religiously sponsored and government funded discrimination that takes place in this country every day. Is Kurtz ready for that dialogue?

 How do we fix the problem?  Tax churches and all church properties not directly and exclusively used for true charitable purposes.  If churches cannot survive without the forced subsidization from non-members, then they deserve to die.  As for the Catholic Church - which owns untold fortunes in art treasures and properties - if parishioners will not pay the bills, then sell of assets.  Just like everyone else.

False Churches - Focus on the Family Declares Itself a "Church"

FOTF founder and Trump BFF, James Dobson

I have long believed that all churches that are not putting the vast majority of their revenues toward true charitable purposes -e.g., feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, aiding the poor, etc. - should not be afforded tax-exempt status. Now, another glaring example of the manner in which taxpayers are being forced to indirectly financially underwrite non-charities is provided by Focus on the Family ("FOTF") which has annual revenues of over $89 million has declared itself a "church."   Where does FOTF spend its money?  One one, it is a leading purveyor of anti-gay lies and disinformation.  It also seeks to control elected officials who will push its Christian dominionist agenda.  And, of course, its leadership cadre laughs all the way to the bank. Very little of the moneys reach what most people would consider true charitable works.  Right Wing Watch looks at this latest abuse of the Internal Revenue Code and IRS rules.  Here are highlights:

Focus on the Family, the behemoth Religious Right organization founded by James Dobson, has declared itself to be a church, thereby avoiding a requirement that it file public tax documents, according to IRS records and a document available on the organization’s website.

Focus on the Family filed as a non-church 501(c)(3) nonprofit as recently as the 2014 fiscal year, submitting to the IRS a publicly available Form 990 as most tax-exempt nonprofits are required to do. But when the group posted a Form 990 for the 2015 fiscal year on its website—dated October 26, 2017, and reporting a massive budget of $89 million—it was emblazoned with the message “Not required to file and not filed with the IRS. Not for public inspection.”

On the part of the form on which it is required to identify the reason for its public charity status, the group indicates that it is a “church, convention of churches or association of churches.”

Focus on the Family declaring itself to be a church is puzzling. While the Colorado Springs-based organization has somewhat softened its image since it was led by the firebrand Dobson, it remains active in political debates and advocacy (even in a nominally nonpartisan way). A “social issues” section on the group’s website currently features information on a supposed threat to bathroom safety posed by transgender people thanks to LGBTQ activists fighting in politics, churches and popular culture, and contains an update on “cultural issues in the courts.” 

Gail Harmon, an attorney who has advised nonprofits on tax law for more than 30 years, said that she had never before seen a nonprofit organization declare itself a church. “I just found it shocking,” she said.

“There’s nothing about them that meets the traditional definition of what a church is,” she said. “They don’t have a congregation, they don’t have the rites of various parts of a person’s life. There’s a whole system for what a church is.”

The IRS lists a number of factors that it considers in determining whether an organization is a church, including whether it has a “definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,” “established places of worship” and “regular religious services,” but notes that an organization “need not have all of the characteristics” listed in order to be considered a church.

We have requested documents on the tax status change from Focus on the Family and from the IRS. Focus on the Family has not responded to our request for comment.

GOP Tax Bill: A Plan to Turn Churches into Dark-Money Sources

Back in June, 216, Donald Trump met with so-called evangelical Christian "leaders" - many head up hate groups that parade as "family values" organizations - and promised them a wish list that included not only an offensive against LGBT rights (something Trump and Jeff Sessions have already been delivering on) but a promise to allow churches, especially, right wing churches, to engage in political endorsements and other activities banned under the so-called Johnson Amendment that prohibits tax-exempt "charities" - a term I personally think should not apply to churches - from political activities.  Now, in the Republican tax bill - which has much to dislike and oppose - seeks to deliver on this promise to Christofascists.   If enacted, this would give a double gift to right wing plutocrats as well as hate merchants who wrap themselves in religion: donors can take a charitable deduction for the "gift" to the church and then the church can engage in political activities against candidates who oppose the Christofascists' divisive, often racist, anti-immigrant, homophobic agenda.  A piece in Salon looks at this insidious effort.  Here are highlights:

There's no doubt that the main purpose of the Republican tax bill, in both its House and Senate forms, is to slash taxes for corporations and the rich while making the rest of the country pay for it. But Republicans are also stuffing a wish list of right-wing goals into the bill. One provision of the House legislation that has gotten relatively little media attention has the potential to drastically remake our campaign finance system, and tilt the already unfair playing field even further toward the Republicans.

Ever since 1954, a legislative add-on known as the Johnson Amendment has prevented charities, social welfare organizations and, perhaps most importantly, churches from endorsing candidates. Such institutions may lose their tax-exempt status if they engage in electioneering. The House bill would functionally dismantle the Johnson Amendment, thereby opening the door to pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpits and for charities large and small -- even the Red Cross or Salvation Army -- to openly support political candidates or causes in the course of their official charitable work.

“The tax bill threatens the integrity of our elections and all of our tax-exempt organizations," Maggie Garrett, the legislative director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in an emailed statement.

This provision, Adam Bozzi of End Citizens United explained to Salon, would create "a gaping loophole in our campaign finance system." Bozzi explained it could "allow a big political donor who wants to make a contribution through the back door to give to a church, which could then endorse a candidate and engage in electioneering."

To make it even worse, the tax-exempt status of churches and charities means that any millionaire or billionaire who funneled political spending through such a group could then turn around and claim that donation as a tax writeoff. Money given to a pastor in order to buy his endorsement wouldn't look any different on paper than money given to a church for its charitable work or other legitimate purposes. Republicans are creating a loophole that will allow rich people to shelter political donations from taxes while influencing election campaigns in total secrecy.

"Faith leaders are called to speak truth to power, and we cannot do so if we are merely cogs in partisan political machines," explains a letter signed by more than 4,000 religious leaders in support of the Johnson Amendment. "Current law respects this independence and strikes the right balance: houses of worship that enjoy favored tax-exempt status may engage in advocacy to address moral and political issues, but they cannot tell people who to vote for or against."

More than 5,500 nonprofit groups have signed a similar letter supporting the Johnson Amendment, noting that current law "protects the integrity and independence of charitable nonprofits and foundations" and "screens out doubts and suspicions regarding ulterior partisan motives of charitable organizations."

What makes this whole debate especially strange is that in the era before Donald Trump's presidential campaign, there really wasn't much controversy over the Johnson Amendment. Some right-wing pastors grumbled about it, but it wasn't a major agenda item for the Christian right or anyone else. But as a candidate, Trump began talking up the idea of repealing the Johnson Amendment as an easy way to pander to the religious right. Now this idea — which was once considered the fringe of the fringe — has made its way into the House tax bill.

Of course, it's easy to understand why Republicans were quick to grab this particular Trumpian idea and inject it into the mainstream GOP agenda. Creating this loophole in our campaign finance system would almost certainly benefit Republicans exponentially more than Democrats. While Democrats certainly have their billionaires who would like to spend a lot of money on elections, Republicans have far more dark-money donors who might be willing to buy up churches and charities and turn them into political lobbies and money funnels.

This effect would most be most likely to have an impact on local and state elections, where it would be ridiculously easy for anonymous but wealthy "benefactors" to make huge donations to churches and charities in exchange for endorsements for their preferred candidates. Already, the loosening of campaign finance laws has opened the door to massive amounts of dark money that has an outsized impact on these kinds of elections. Ending the Johnson Amendment would drastically increase the flow of dark money, turning the idea of electoral fairness into more of a joke than it is already.

If this provision becomes law, expect "family values" hate groups to rake in money from right wing donors and then push for candidates who would intertwine their toxic religious beliefs in the civil law.  Local elections would be particularly at risk.  I can fully imagine Pat Robertson, extremists at Liberty University and The Family Foundation targeting school board and other local elections to fill positions with like minded extremists.

Call your U.S. Senators and member of the House of Representatives and demand that they vote "No" on the GOP tax bills.  

The Justice Department Bends Over Backwards to Craft Special Rights for Christofascists

Jack Phillips - the face of a bigot demanding special rights

I have previously noted how the Trump Department of Justice has intervened in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that has the goal, if successful, of carving out an exception to public accommodation and non-discrimination laws for right wing Christian extremists - those I refer to as Christofascists.   While the effort is largely without precedent, it comes as no surprise given (i) Donald Trump's selling of whatever soul he has to Christofascists during a a June, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower, and (ii) Jeff Sessions' decades old racism and homophobia (Sessions and I were both in the Mobile, Alabama legal community decades ago and, in my opinion, the man has only become more foul with the passage of time).  Given the obsession of the conservative justices on the court with pandering to the myth of Christian persecution and "protecting religious freedom" (Gorsuch is particularly obsessed in this regard), there is a frightening chance that the effort will succeed and the civil rights of many minorities, not just gays, will suffer as a consequence.  The Washington Post editorial board rightly lets loose of Sessions - and by extension, Trump.  One can only wonder how long it will be before blacks - or perhaps Jews given Trump's seeming love for Neo-Nazis - can be targeted for discrimination as long as the bigots claim their religious beliefs justify the mistreatment and segregation.  Here are highlights: 

SHOULD A Colorado baker have the right to turn away a gay couple seeking a custom wedding cake if he disapproves of their upcoming marriage? According to the Justice Department, the answer is yes.

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments over the conduct of this unwilling baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Though the federal government isn’t a party to the case, the Justice Department has made a point of weighing in on the side of Jack Phillips, the “cake artist” whose religious opposition to same-sex marriage led him to refuse to design a cake for a gay couple.

The Justice Department’s legal brief has — rightly — faced criticism from civil rights groups appalled by the government’s argument that Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs grant him a constitutional right to discriminate against gay customers, despite a Colorado public-accommodations law prohibiting unequal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, the brief is a dispiriting signal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s priorities. The government went out of its way to side with Mr. Phillips, but it has been quiet on any number of other significant cases before the Supreme Court this term.

Masterpiece Cakeshop isn’t really a religious-freedom case at all — though Mr. Phillips’s attorneys do point to their client’s constitutional rights on that front. Because Colorado lacks legislation raising the standard for state infringement on religious belief — unlike many states and the federal government — Mr. Phillips is left with what’s likely a losing argument.

That’s why both Mr. Phillips and the Justice Department focus on the baker’s freedom of expression, arguing that crafting a cake for a same-sex wedding would force Mr. Phillips to celebrate a ceremony of which he disapproves.

The Justice Department’s effort to craft a narrow exception to public-accommodations law risks blowing a hole through the fabric of that law entirely. Mr. Phillips is providing a service to his customers for pay. While he does so, he should be subject to anti-discrimination laws like every other business is.

Two years after Obergefell, cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop have been relatively unsuccessful and few and far between — a sign of a nation moving forward. The Supreme Court should now resist the Justice Department’s effort to turn back the clock.

The take away?  Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians are not nice or decent people and the mainstream media needs to start facing the reality that these people are self-centered bigots who think that they are above the laws.  Perhaps while exposing their nastiness, an effort should be made to repeal the tax exempt status of churches - the rest of the citizenry should not be forced to indirectly financially subsidize these foul institutions. 

Will the Politicization of Churches Backfire?

Trump and Christofascists/hate merchants James Dobson and Tony Perkins

As noted, Donald Trump's "religious liberty" executive order has left the anti-gay forces among the Christofascist hugely disappointed.  The longed for exemption of Christofascists from non-discrimination laws and ordinances did not materialize.  What the hate merchants did receive was purported cover for right wing churches to openly engage in political activities - not that many weren't already doing so on a de facto basis anyways.  Here in Virginia, The Family Foundation, perhaps the leading hate group in Virginia, has for years operated a network with conservative churches and pastors and pushed these churches to vigorously work for TFF's regressive and theocratic agenda.   Thus, the executive order may not result in any change in the reality on the ground that much.   More importantly, it may accelerate the exodus from Christianity and religion in general that is sweeping the country.  I have long thought that despite a uptick in aggressiveness and stridency, long term the Christofascists may be one of the most powerful elements in the death of Christianity.  A piece in Salon looks at this possibility.  Here are highlights:

Thursday, on the National Day of Prayer, Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.” . . . . The final draft of the order, however, was a drastic rewriting. All the LGBT-specific attacks were taken out and abortion was not mentioned, though the new order does direct federal officials to consider changing health care regulations in order to stop insurance coverage of contraception for huge swaths of women. Instead, in a somewhat surprising move, the executive order largely focuses on undermining a law meant to discourage religious authorities from using their powers to influence elections.

This move is obviously meant as a giveaway to leaders of the religious right, who did so much to help elect Trump, and also as a way for Republicans to consolidate power by allowing conservative Christian pastors even more leeway to pressure their congregants to vote Republican. But this power grab could well backfire on the Christian right. Instead of drumming up more votes for Republicans, breaking down barriers between church and state may end up driving even more people out of the churches entirely.

Trump’s executive order doesn’t change the law — that would take an act of Congress. But it officially discourages the IRS from auditing or fining religious organizations and churches that may be in violation of it. . . . . it’s a solution looking for a problem. There’s no evidence that churches are being treated especially harshly by the IRS.

Still, the release of this executive order and all the publicity around it could encourage ministers, especially those of the fundamentalist variety, to get even bolder when it comes to campaigning from the pulpit. That’s where there’s a good chance this whole effort could backfire. There’s a fair amount of evidence to suggest that churches that become more political and conservative aren’t recruiting more people to the right-wing cause, and in fact may be driving people away.

One of the biggest social trends of the past decade is the rapid growth of the “nones” — people with no affiliation to organized religion — which is particularly pronounced with younger Americans. Both Pew Research and the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) have found that up to a quarter of Americans don’t identity with any religious tradition at all, up from 6 percent in 1991. Four out of 10 Americans under the age of 30 are unchurched.

But where it gets really interesting is when one starts looking at the reasons why. Most nonreligious people — 78 percent, according to Pew Research — were raised in a religion and abandoned it in adulthood. While most simply say they no longer believe, there is some evidence that distaste for the religious right has had a significant impact.
According to PRRI, nearly 30 percent of those who have left a church cite their disapproval of religious homophobia as a reason. Sixteen percent say their churches became too political and 19 percent cite the clergy sex abuse scandal.

Sixty-six percent of nonbelievers in the PRRI survey agreed with the statement that “religion causes more problems in society than it solves.”

Encouraging ministers and priests to become more belligerent and more repressive in their politics, in the face of these rapid changes in religious affiliation and religious attitudes, is not likely to gain converts to the conservative cause. It’s probably just going to make more people who were already feeling uneasy with the conservative bent of much of Christianity to choose to leave their churches, and quite possibly to abandon religion altogether.

[P]olling data shows that most Americans think it’s a good idea to keep churches away from direct political campaigning. Pew Research polling shows that 66 percent of American respondents support the Johnson amendment.

Perhaps, then, atheists should be the ones celebrating this executive order. Legally, Trump’s latest order is largely toothless, but culturally, it’s only likely to accentuate the aspects of religion Americans like the least, namely the controlling and reactionary aspects of it. That, in turn, will encourage more Americans to use their Sunday mornings for sleeping and shopping, rather than enduring political lectures from conservative religious pastors.

Let's hope that by giving them a portion of what they want, Trump will have unwittingly accelerated their long term demise. 

Another Contrived Battle in the Phony War on Religion

If one listens to most far right conservative Christians, they will tell you that they and their faith are under unceasing attack.  Anything that restricts their ability to mistreat and discriminate against others is labeled as oppression and a threat to their "religious liberty."  The same holds true with anything that restricts their ability to suck up taxpayer funds to fuel their church operations or "ministries" such as those that operate adoption services.  Put another way, these Christofascists seek to be above the laws that govern the rest of America and they seek to force every tax payer to under write their religion (something that already occurs due to churches' tax-exempt status).  Now, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to force the State of Missouri to pay for a playground on church property.  The church involved, Trinity Lutheran Church, in Columbia, Missouri, is a part of the so-called Missouri Synod, an extremely right wing, anti-gay, anti-modernity branch of the Lutheran church in the United States.  In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, it is arguing that taxpayers should pay for the upgrade of its school playground - a playground that is not open to the public.  One good review of the manufactured controversy is here in The Atlantic.  A column in the Washington Post looks at the case which Christofascists hope to use as a foothold to divert public education funds to church affiliated schools.  Here are excerpts:  

Before he joined the Supreme Court a decade ago, John Roberts proclaimed what he called “the cardinal rule of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more.”

But as he heard arguments Wednesday in this term’s much anticipated church-state case, the chief justice seemed to be practicing a different rule from the one he preached: More is more.

Restraint was in short supply during oral arguments in the Trinity Lutheran Church case at the high court. It was a manufactured controversy, cooked up by conservative interest groups that are hoping to chip away at constitutional provisions in 39 states restricting taxpayer money from going to churches. In this case, it wasn’t only unnecessary to decide more — it was unnecessary to decide it at all.

It wasn’t a big deal to start with: A preschool in Missouri had applied for a state grant in 2012 to repave its playground with flooring made from old tires. The state rated the application highly but denied the grant because the school was run by a church. The church sued.

The complaint became irrelevant last week when the state’s new governor, Eric Greitens, reversed Missouri’s position and said he would allow religious organizations to compete for such grants. 

Sonia Sotomayor asked Layton: If representatives of the state “are not willing to fight this case, are they manufacturing adversity by appointing you?”

The short answer: Yes.

In front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Concerned Women for America, a conservative group, was displaying balloons and signs proclaiming “Every Child’s Safety Matters.” Said Annette Kiehne, the Trinity Lutheran preschool director, “This is about keeping our kids safe, wherever they play.”

But it really wasn’t about that. It was about interest groups whose business model depends on perpetuating the culture wars trying to frighten people into thinking Christianity is under siege. It was a springtime version of the annual “war on Christmas.”

Michael Farris, CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Trinity in the case, was fairly straightforward about his motives, telling reporters in the plaza that “there’s a broad concern among religious people in this country that we’re becoming second-class citizens.”

But if this supposed assault on Christianity is real, it has been going on for a long time. Opponents of the church-state language in state constitutions correctly say that these “Blaine Amendments” were shaped by anti-Catholic bigotry in the late 19th century. But their roots go back to the founding. Layton told the justices that Missouri in 1820 adopted language based on Thomas Jefferson’s 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which said that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.”

What has changed now? Nothing — except the rise of interest groups (on both sides) that justify their existence and boost their fundraising with such controversies. The goal this time: to roll back restrictions on public money going to churches. An article in the conservative National Review argued that “a victory for Trinity Lutheran would fundamentally alter the landscape of school choice.”

So that’s what it’s about: Invalidating dozens of state constitutional provisions keeping public money out of churches. “There are 39 states with constitutional amendments like the one Missouri has. That’s a history,” Sotomayor said. “And the essence of that history is, basically, we don’t want . . . the vast majority of states to fund houses of worship.”

[T]he American tradition that the government doesn’t give cash to churches is venerable. A restrained judiciary wouldn’t upend that tradition because of a manufactured conflict over a playground.

The church's suit needs to be thrown out.  Religious institutions of all stripes have a simple choice:  if they want taxpayer funds, then they must not discriminate and must make their facilities open to the public.  If they are not willing to take that approach, then do not ask for taxpayer funds.  It really is that simple.  But I'd go further.  Tax-exempt status for churches needs to end.  Taxpayers should not be forced to indirectly support churches they do not attend and that may be outright hostile towards them.  Moreover, most churches spend a pittance on true charity work, so the myth that they are true charities needs to end.  They are little more than clubs to which people choose to join.  Their "fellowship" is little different that what one finds at most yacht clubs and country clubs. They do NOT deserve public funds.  End of discussion.