The new religious right has turned against the old religious right.
Or, to put it another way, the focus of the movement is changing. I spent more than 20 years defending religious liberty in federal courts. Our objective was to defend liberty so that religious organizations enjoyed the liberty to do good, free from state discrimination.
Yet now the focus of Christian right isn’t on the defense of liberty; it’s on the accumulation of power. And it is using that power to impose its will, including by imposing its will on Christian organizations it has decided are woke or opposed to President Trump’s agenda.
Few things illustrate that reality more clearly than the Trump administration’s decision to unilaterally — and often unlawfully — defund Christian organizations, including evangelical organizations, that serve poor and marginalized people at home and abroad.
In the first three weeks of his administration, Trump issued a series of stop-work orders and funding freezes that effectively yanked funding from religious groups that have been providing lifesaving care to many of the most vulnerable people in the world.
Caritas International, a confederation of international Catholic relief agencies, has warned that the cuts are “catastrophic” and said that the “ruthless and chaotic” way that the administration has made its cuts “threatens the lives and dignity of millions.”
The Trump administration’s cuts are immaterial to the deficit. U.S.A.I.D.’s foreign assistance constituted less than 1 percent of the federal budget, for example. All direct foreign aid (including the surge in aid to Ukraine) adds up to a mere 1.17 percent of total government spending in the 2023 fiscal year.
Yet cuts to foreign aid endanger people’s lives, including those of Afghan refugees who risked everything helping Americans during our longest war.
The cuts are also symbolic. They demonstrate the extent to which Trump is influencing the evangelical church more than the church is influencing him.
So what happened? The answer is complex, but two factors stand out. The Republican Christian right made a hard turn against immigration and, in its most extreme political faction, is turning against empathy itself.
Yes, that’s what happens when you mix religion and government: The government ends up influencing the religion much, much more than the other way around.
If you’re a religious organization and you accept funding from a government you’re falling into a trap. The government can threaten to remove that funding in the future for any given reason; such as the whims of a corrupt administration.
“If you don’t change your ways (i.e. your religion) you won’t get this funding anymore.”
I argue that any religion that accepts such a bargain was corrupt from the start. The people in charge never truly believed in the first place if they’re willing to change what they do/preach based on the whims of funding.
Their benefit from the government is supposed to be not getting taxed. Getting both benefits does indeed corrupt the entire point of separation of church and state. I’d argue they also shouldn’t be tax free, too, but I’d settle for the government not freaking paying them…
Unfortunately, it seems that any organization or even any non federal jurisdiction, that doesn’t want to promote the agenda of the current federal government, and you accept funding, you’re falling into a trap.
So what is the solution to that?
We stop depending on the federal government for funding? I’m sure they would agree is the solution, yet they still expect us to pay tax dollars.
Maybe we should stop allowing the federal government to enforce restrictions that don’t pertain to protecting the rights and liberty of citizens, and we increase the power of people within communities to place restrictions on federal and executive authority over domestic issues.
Fund only secular organizations. It’s the most ethical solution.
deleted by creator
But then you have a state authority discriminating against an organization based on the religion of the organization.
I think there need to be some major changes regarding how tax exemption status is handled, but some churches do a lot of good and offer a lot of help to people in communities that would literally have no where else to turn to.
No, by only funding secular organizations the government is not picking and choosing which religions win and which don’t.
Secular is the neutral position. When you fund a religious institution you have discriminated against all the others. When you pick a secular organization you haven’t discriminated against anyone’s religion because you chose the org that—by definition—isn’t religious.
That is the whole argument the right used to create the “moral majority,” though.
I really don’t think you should just flat out refuse funding for religious organizations, but I do think there should be more required of religious organizations and nonprofits in order to receive tax exemption status, especially if they receive federal or state funding on top of tax exemption.
Like there’s a giant hospital monopoly in my state that receives grants from the state, and nonprofit tax exemption status despite the fact that the 2 CEOs both make over $1.5M each.
Meanwhile, the state is playing the whole “no doctors will take medicaid at the current rate, so we have to make cuts to state Medicaid.”
Here’s a fucking idea, how about you don’t give state grants to hospitals with staff that (allegedly) won’t accept state Medicaid or better yet, say that if the hospital is going to be receiving state funds in addition to that sweet ass nonprofit status, not only will they be expected to accept Medicaid, they also have to cap administrative salaries.
Same for churches or any other religious organization. Tax exemption status should be based on showing that you’ve earned that status by actually contributing to improving society. Otherwise it’s just corporate welfare.
deleted by creator
The old religious right was also a bunch of fascists. They just said they wanted liberty. Usually while demanding book bans, anti-queer legislation, and the execution of abortion doctors.
If the author genuinely meant all the shit those frauds claim to want, they are a mark, and provided cover for discrimination, oppression, and indoctrination.
