Trump Signs Religious Freedom Executive Order in Front of Interfaith Gathering at White House

WASHINGTON — During an interfaith gathering at the White House, President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday—the National Day of Prayer—upholding religious freedom in the nation and directing departments in his administration to ensure that the rights of religious Americans are not infringed.

“We are a nation of believers. Faith is deeply embedded into the history of our country,” he said, delivering a speech from the White House rose garden, surrounded by various evangelical, Catholic and Jewish leaders, including Paula White, Jack Graham and Donald Wuerl.

Orthodox, Muslim and Sikh representatives also sat in the audience, and Trump advised that he would be traveling to Rome, Saudi Arabia and Israel this month—the centers of Roman Catholic, Muslim and Jewish faiths.

Trump noted that in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln called the nation’s inhabitants to prayer, fearing that Americans had become “too proud to pray to the God that made us.”

In addition to recognizing the National Day of Prayer, Trump outlined that he would be signing an executive order protecting religious freedom, which took place immediately following his speech.

“Freedom is not a gift from government; it is a gift from God,” he said. “Our founding fathers believed that religious liberty was so fundamental that they enshrined it in the First Amendment of our great and beloved Constitution.”

“Yet, for too long, the federal government has used the power of the state as a weapon against people of faith, bullying and even punishing Americans for following their religious beliefs,” Trump stated. “That is why I am signing today an executive order to defend the freedom of religion and speech in America.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Trump outlined that his executive order will direct the U.S. Department of Justice to develop new rules to ensure that religious protections are not infringed by the federal government.

He noted that more than 50 faith-related lawsuits had been filed against the Obama administration during its eight-year tenure, including by the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor, which he called forward.

“Not only are we a nation of faith, but we are a nation of tolerance,” Trump declared. “We will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced any more. And we will never, ever stand for religious discrimination.”

He explained that his order also includes text prohibiting the IRS from enforcing the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches from endorsing or speaking against certain political candidates.

“No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors,” Trump said. “America has a rich tradition of social change beginning in our pews and our pulpits. … [And] we must never infringe on the noble tradition of change from the church and progress from the pew.”

“Under my administration, free speech does not end at the steps of a cathedral or synagogue, or any other house of worship,” he proclaimed. “We are giving churches their voices back. We are giving them back in the highest form.”

While some were hoping the order would also include text regarding Christian beliefs on the institution of marriage, Trump did not mention the matter during his speech.

As previously reported, days after taking office, the Trump administration advised that it would keep intact Obama’s order, #13672, which amended a 1969 order by then-President Richard Nixon prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap and age,” as well as a 1998 order from then-President Bill Clinton adding “sexual orientation” to the list.

Obama added “gender identity” to Clinton’s “sexual orientation” language.

“The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump,” the White House said in a statement in January.

Michael Ferris, newly-installed president of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), expressed apprehension over how much Trump’s religious freedom order will actually accomplish.

“[T]hough we appreciate the spirit of today’s gesture, vague instructions to federal agencies simply leaves them wiggle room to ignore that gesture, regardless of the spirit in which it was intended,” he said in a statement following the signing.

“We strongly encourage the president to see his campaign promise through to completion and to ensure that all Americans—no matter where they live or what their occupation is—enjoy the freedom to peacefully live and work consistent with their convictions without fear of government punishment,” Ferris continued.

“As the president said today, ‘No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the federal government and the tenets of their faith.'”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Bring on the lawsuits!

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      They want bankrupt the Christians and weaken and silence the Christian population in the land so they could continue the evil. The USA needs Christian education to stop the evil from flourishing and gaining strength.

    • Jason Todd

      You are a bigot!

      • TheLastHonestLawyer

        Matthew 7:1

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The West needs morality. No one should live out the Roman/Greek porn stories. It’s insane. You guys need Christianity to become civilized again.

  • Tangent002

    By weakening enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, the President’s order blurs an important distinction that has existed for 60 years between tax-exempt institutions and political organizations. It also swings the door wide open for unchecked ‘dark money’ to flow through nonprofit organizations, allowing for unlimited, anonymous, tax-deductible political donations…Today, charitable giving from individuals and foundations help countless individuals in the communities in which they live. Their good works should not become entangled in electoral politics.

    – The Council on Foundations

    • Sisyphus

      The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution decried taxation without representation, now Christians want representation without taxation.

      • Oboehner

        So none of its members pay taxes?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          No, no one said that at all.

          • Oboehner

            “now Christians want representation WITHOUT taxation.”
            Oh, ok.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The members pay taxes. The church doesn’t.

          • Oboehner

            “now Christians want representation WITHOUT taxation.”
            Oh, ok.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I stand by my statement.

          • steve

            What you don’t realize is Church is the people and people pay taxes. You have a misconception of the Church. Church is not a building or a house, but a people and a segment of society and to take away their voice is like putting Jews in concentration camps, just because you don’t like their ethnicity and that is called prejudice and hate. The Church is made up of every tribe, tongue, nation and people. All these tax paying people called the Church give over and above their taxes to help people in society all around the world to live with hope for tomorrow. The Church is on the scene in almost every tragedy in the world to help people of all backgrounds and most of the time are right their with the first responders and help to rebuild homes and give food, clothing and meet many other fundamental needs. Time to change you perception of what the Church is.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No one is taking away the church’s voice. Only stating that if the church wants to engage in politicking that it pay taxes like everyone else.

        • Sisyphus

          Religious institutions don’t pay taxes, but want to try to dictate policy. Apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strengths.

          • Jason Todd

            Morality trumps anarchy every single time.

            Are you one of those Antifa twits?

          • Sisyphus

            Are you able to make a substantive, on point comment?

          • Jason Todd

            I was responding to your own, equally alleged, “substantive, on point comment.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No. He’s not.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I think he was being sarcastic…

          • Oboehner

            “Apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strengths.” Resorting to ad hominems kinda early aren’t you? I would guess then if religious organizations cannot influence the legislative system, then no laws apply to the either right?

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          The point is that churches are 501(c)3 tax-exempt entities. Under the law, *any* organization that gets this status has to follow several laws about their activities. One of these is you cannot take part in partisan politics by explicitly supporting candidates or measures.

          I’m part of a 501(c)3 group that is working to get the Manzanar War Relocation Center upgraded to a National Park and restored to its wartime appearance. We can advocate positions, lobby Congress, and talk out heads off to anyone who will listen, but we cannot send out a mailer saying “elect Joe Smith” because he supports our cause.

          Now Christian churches (some, not all) want to have all the benefits of being a 501(c)3 without having to follow the rules. Which violates the Constitution.

          • Oboehner

            According to IRS Publication 557, as well as IRS Code § 508, churches and church ministries are “exempt automatically.” No 501(c)3 required.
            The church in America is also protected from the government by the First Amendment:
            “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
            “Which violates the Constitution.” Nope.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            That just means that a church is assumed to be operating under the rules of a 501(c)3. Nothing in there that says they don’t have to follow the rules.

            “Churches (including integrated auxiliaries and conventions or associations of churches) that meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of exempt status from the IRS. Donors are allowed to claim a charitable deduction for donations to a church that meets the section 501(c)(3) requirements even though the church has neither sought nor received IRS recognition that it is tax exempt. In addition, because churches and certain other religious organizations are not required to file an annual return or notice with the IRS, they are not subject to automatic revocation of exemption for failure to file.”

            Note the key words there: “meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code”. This is, essentially, a paperwork reduction measure. But churches can lose that tax exempt status, and have done so, for failing to maintain those requirements.

          • Oboehner

            “That just means that a church is assumed” That means you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

          • steve

            What were the rules before the Johnson Amendment in 1952? The Johnson amendment was to shut the Church up because of the fear of it’s influence. The tax exempt status is really for a tax write off to those who pay their taxes and give over and above that to help people in the time of need, but the problem is many 501(c)3 organizations have now regulated that to the government. As a pastor and leader in the community, I could care less about a 501(c)3 status,because I pay taxes on what I earn and so does everyone that earns a living. In their love for helping others, Church which is people and not a building should get a little break for going beyond and above of just paying taxes and helping many other people of all different beliefs and societies. Keep it real

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Before that nonprofits could dive into partisan politics.

            If you don’t like the rules and paperwork, the solution is simple. Don’t file as a 501(c)3. Pay all the taxes just like a for-profit entity.

            Churches get the classification by default because Congress decided they deserved the break without having the headache of constant filing. The churches just have to follow the insanely simple rules for keeping the status: Don’t support candidates or specific proposals that are being voted on. Churches can talk about issues all they like, and in doing that can influence their flock. That’s perfectly legal.

            But demanding the tax break without any rules is demanding special rights.

    • Oboehner

      Boo hoo.
      – me

      • Jason Todd

        Tangent lives in Canada, a country where you can be prosecuted for so much as speaking negatively about homosexuality. His thoughts and opinions on this subject are absolutely irrelevant.

        • Oboehner

          Anything amounting to “born that way” or “normal” in regard to homosexuality is an irrelevant lie.

  • George Fillin

    This is and will always be nonsense.
    I will give you an example.
    God said a man laying with a man like a man lays with a woman is an abomination. And thus, because he said so it is indeed an abomination.
    The law he signed says you can’t discriminate against a man like me who obeys God over man and yet it also says you cannot discriminate against weird delusional diseased men who sleep with other men like they would a woman. Or a weird delusional diseased woman who sleeps with a woman like as she would a man.

    So, in any instance of contention the hypocrisy of the law maker is shown and the person who wins(God decides in all cases) will be the one who has the most support from the authority around him. (I.E. the most and loudest voices). And thus, the end result of each issue will spread as it is talked about like we humans like to talk and there will be MORE contention because people from either side will seek to remedy the final result for their own gain or moral understandings(or lack thereof). Which will make MORE issues where there will have to be a final ruling as to whether this nation if a nation that keeps Yahweh’s laws or heathen’s ideas. And we know that the “melting pot” of ideas from heathens and false gods this nation currently is, will choose their freedom from Yeshua to do whatever is pleasurable. This is why Christ said he will have angels bring rebels in front of his face to be slain in front of his face when he returns.

    So this is NOT helpful, it is hypocrisy.

    • Sharon_at_home

      I believe that by treating the LGBTs badly, people are judging them as sinners, Ok, as a Christian I understand that, but they are also punishing them by their treatment. I understand that a sinner’s punishment should be left up to God.
      Jesus told us to love everyone. The way the Christians in the media are behaving, they are not only judging LGBTs of their sin, they are convicting and punishing them. I believe the conviction and punishment is to be left for God to deal with. I also believe Jesus would want us to treat everyone well, regardless of their sin.

      Jesus said to discern whether or not the person is sinning, then to try to introduce them to the Gospel and to Jesus’ Love. If they weren’t interested and wanted to continue without our help, he said that we should ‘wipe our hands’ of them and leave them in their sin. That God would judge them on Judgment Day.

      What I don’t understand is why the Christians in the media treat them so badly and then try to say it’s out of love that they want them to stop sinning… Why would anyone want to listen to someone about anything after being treated like that?

      This is not love, it is punishment for their sin, and they should not be doing something God said to leave to him.

      Not only that, but they are creating a negative image of Christians that effects all of us. LGBTs should not be afraid of Christians for one thing. I don’t like to be accused of being rude and demeaning to someone because they think all Christians are like the ones in the media. I’m not anything like them (in this situation) and I have to point it out on comment boards so I am not attacked for being Christian.

      Am I right? Or am I missing scripture that says this is wrong (any or all of it)

      I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. 🙂

      • SFBruce

        While I know we disagree about many things, I appreciate much of what you say hear. In particular,

        What I don’t understand is why the Christians in the media treat them so badly and then try to say it’s out of love that they want them to stop sinning… Why would anyone want to listen to someone about anything after being treated like that?

        • Sharon_at_home

          We may not disagree much at all. I usually just try to help non-believers understand why Christians act in certain situations in a way that expresses what they think. I don’t always agree with it, but I do know why they do a lot of things, I just don’t always understand what motive they have in the group in the media.
          The church I belong to has a different view on the bible to a lot of things. We focus on Jesus and His Love, rather than going out to protest things. It’s about the positive things in God’s Word more often than the negative things.
          I’ve only been going to church for the last 8 years, and I started in my 50’s other than Sunday School as a child, so I can see both the Christian side and remember the secular side still. It helps me think about things a little differently I guess.
          Thanks for letting me know! God bless!

      • George Fillin

        Jesus did not tell anyone to love everyone. You are lying. He also said that judgement is in the hands of his servants and their right. The ONLY reason why homosexuals are in this country and are not dying and afraid to show their faces is because the “Christians” in this country are hypocrites and not christian at all. If there was a Christian king ore Christian governors then we wouldn’t be having this conversations. Nor do you understand what judgement is. LGBT are death in multiple ways and deserve death, such is the punishment for murder.

        • Sharon_at_home

          Maybe I’m mistaken but I don’t lie, thank you.
          I asked for your help with it, if you look at my post.
          You’ve done that in a way that sounds aggressive when my post is anything but. If anything it should have made you feel good that someone wants your advice.
          Not anymore thank you, I’ll wait until I can speak to my Pastor instead.

          • Chris

            In support of your assertion here’s a few. The bible says that ‘for God so loved the world…” And in the Gospels Jesus is portrayed as saying ‘Be perfect even as your heavenly father is perfect.” Well if Christians are to follow God’s example then that would mean loving everyone.

        • Sharon_at_home

          You’re a Liar.
          Here is where Jesus tells us to love everyone.

          Mark ch.12:29 – 31

          “29 The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
          30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
          soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
          31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”
          He doesn’t say brothers, he said thy neighbour which means everyone. Not just the ones who live beside you.
          Maybe your church doesn’t look at that the same way mine does. If not I prefer mine.

          • Jason Todd

            Yes, Jesus did say to love everyone. And this is where He said we should tolerate sin, which is what homosexuality is:

          • steve

            He never says to tolerate sin, but to hate sin, just as He hates sin. He loves people but He hate sin. Adultery, Fornication and homosexuality is all sexual sin. all sins are outside of the body, but he who is in sexual sin, sins against his/her own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

          • Sharon_at_home

            That’s why we are supposed to discuss their sin, but not until we give them the Good News so they see why we believe the way we do. We should not criticize them, If they don’t want the information then we are to leave them alone. Luke 9:5 ““And whosoever will not receive you, when ye
            go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a
            testimony against them.””
            it’s so they have a choice and they use their free will to choose.
            Yes but God doesn’t want us to convict or punish them, that’s why he is known to have said ““Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”” Romans 12:19

            Where in Love everyone as you love yourself do you not see that we should tolerate it because it is up to God what punishment they get, not up to us. How can you punish someone by being cruel to them about their sins, and expect them to change their minds about their sin. As you say, they already know that it is considered a sin so I’m sure they have consider Christ before.

            Jesus does not want us to be cruel and nasty about other people’s sin.

          • George Fillin

            Yeah. You lie.
            Neighbor does not = Everyone.
            He explained who your neighbor is in a parable.

            Also, he stated clearly who your neighbor is in the law found the law. So, stop.

          • Chris

            Could you explain how Matthew 7:1 applies to what you’ve written.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Which parable?

          • George Fillin

            The parable of the righteous Samaritan. Geneva or 1599 King James.

          • steve

            Okay, but love corrects, Whom the Lord loves, He chastens. The problem is people who want to stay in their sin, and they receive correction as rejection instead of love. Also scripture tells us to judge with righteous judgement (ie, to judge actions without judging people) The reason we judge actions is not to condemn, but to check our own hearts, also John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. If we will declare the truth in love (speak the truth in love) and preach against sin, not the sinner, then maybe the sinner will come to the knowledge of the truth and turn from their wicked ways and be saved and healed. I also believe if people aren’t open to correction, they are open to deception. God will ultimately judge all things, but in the mean time, we all need to do a checkup from the neck up. If I don’t check myself, I’ll wreck myself. Let’s try to win everyone possible by showing the love of God and fighting the good fight of faith. We need to be prayer warriors and devil destroyers and know that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the lies of the enemy to destroy the human race that God created His image and likeness. God bless you

          • Sharon_at_home

            I agree with everything you said. I was never able to quite say that about judgment in a way that it was clearer. I’m new so I appreciate the way you answered my question.
            You know, except the liar part. 🙂

          • steve

            My apologies for the liar comment.

          • George Fillin

            I am going to respond one more time to you woman.
            I am going to teach you to think for yourself and not adopt the beliefs of your “church” congregation.
            I am going to show you how to love the words of Yahweh and not the traditions of men.
            And I am going to teach you how to learn of God very easily.

            Go and get your bible and go and get your concordance, then come back. Lean not unto your own understanding, but hearken unto me even this one time.

            Open your concordance to these words:
            Hate
            Neighbor
            Love
            Judgement
            Respect
            Trust

            Read EVERY SINGLE SCRIPTURE which contain these words. And make note of when God speaks on them specifically and when the prophets expound on them to the people. Make note of when these words are mentioned in the law of Moses and in the law of God. Make note of how these words are used in the old testament and in the the new and understand within yourself that God NEVER changes. So, the meaning in the old, is that same meaning in the new no matter what you or your pastor may believe(or websters dictionary tells you).

            Once you have seen all that has been said, TEST and PROVE the things which God has said like he commanded you through Saul saying, “Prove all things, and hold on to that which is good”. If you refuse to get proof of what you have seen in the law then you are as worthless as an atheist who has read the scriptures. Get proof before you speak.

            When you have proof and you have seen ALL things which God has said on those four words and ALL things which the prophets have said on those four words, you will see that you were a liar today and your congregation believes a lie.

            Love God, not man. Trust God, NEVER trust man. Respect God, NEVER respect man.

            And finally as I have said, Christ himself expounded on the definition of a Neighbor by his own mouth in the samaritan parable, moreover he DID NOT contradict himself by giving a different definition of neighbor than that which was given in the law.

            The method of word study by concordance that I showed you above works for many things. Use it to your advantage and God’s glory.
            This is the last time I will respond to you. Farewell.

      • MyLady1

        I think we should be nice to them, but also tell them what they are doing wrong according to God. Isn’t that what Paul told all those cities in his books? That is not judging, people just think it is. God said to tell people when they are doing wrong, if they don’t quit, take more people with you & if they don’t quit, kick them out of the church. If Christians still did this our churches wouldn’t be full of the bad things that God was wrong. Don’t have time to look it up, but isn’t there more than one verse where God said to not even talk to people who do such things? If telling someone they are doing something bad is judging then good parents are judging their kids everyday. Are they supposed to quit? Ditto for cops & judges, etc..

  • William of Glynn

    At least one good thing to come out of this is that hate group leader Bryan Fischer is ever so annoyed that, in his view, the order does not go far enough.

  • Vaughn D

    Let’s see how the fascist tyrants in the black robes deal with this. Hope they’re foaming at the mouth right now.

    • Sisyphus

      The “fascist tyrants” are known as an independent judiciary, one of the strengths of American democracy. If you hate the US Constitution, I’m sure there is an Islamic theocracy happy to have you immigrate.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        White people should have more children. The land goes to foreigners naturally. Constitution becomes meaningless to childless species.

      • Jason Todd

        The US Constitution doesn’t give judges the authority you think they have.

        Go to YouTube and pull up, “Three Ring Government,” from Schoolhouse Rock for an explanation.

        • Sharon_at_home

          Oh My you brought back memories when you said Schoolhouse Rock!
          Thank you that was a nice thing to happen early in the morning. I loved those shows. Magic School Buss was another one that taught things simply so we could understand them better. Thanks + God Bless!

        • Sisyphus

          YouTube and Schoolhouse Rock, the refuge of intellectual midgets. Care to compare published works on political theory? My books and articles don’t contain pretty pictures or monosyllabic words, so probably over your head.

          • Jason Todd

            YouTube and Schoolhouse Rock, the refuge of intellectual midgets.

            Actually, the short I specifically referred to explains in a way children can understand exactly how this country’s government is set up. Contrary to what you might believe, final and ultimate authority does not belong to people in black robes. This is a constitutional republic, not a klitarchy.

            Your failure to grasp this undermines your credibility.

          • Sisyphus

            Assuming you meant a kritarchy; Your assessment of my credibility means so much to me. You should write a scathing letter to Columbia University to inform them they’ve conferred a PhD in Political Philosophy to a charlatan.

          • Jason Todd

            Oh, is that supposed to impress me? News flash: Your degree is irrelevant and worthless.

            All I have done is argue exactly how, because of the way our government was created, judges believe they are worth more than they actually are. You have not refuted any of this, just continuously and blatantly insulted my intelligence.

            And now you mention your degree as if it should mean something to me. To put it quite simply I just don’t care.

            If you have anything that actually addresses what had been talking about as well as the actual topic at hand I may actually respond. Otherwise I shall no longer waste so much as a moment of my time with you.

          • Sisyphus

            That was easy, see ya!

          • Jason Todd

            Stupid troll.

          • Sisyphus

            Again with the name calling, bottom line, I could say white and you would say black; and neither of us will change.

          • Jason Todd

            You started it. Never forget that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            He was giving you something you could understand.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      They will look other ways to do evil. Liberals continue the nazi youth education in the land. The USA needs the Holy Bible for freedom as always and for-ever.

      • steve

        Quit attacking. Are you a believer or deceiver. God has used the USA more than any nation on the earth to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ and where sin does abound, grace does much more abound. If your not praying for us to be blessed, then your cursing us and that is spiritual witchcraft. We know there is no peace without the Prince of peace Jesus, but the Church will arise and shine and that is the church that Jesus said He is building and the gates of hell shall not prevail against. You have no spiritual of prophetic insight to what God is saying in the USA in this hour. Pray and please stop speaking curses and decree the word only and let God arise and His enemies be scattered. Jesus bless you.

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          Thank you. Of course you are right. The USA has been the greatest Christian missionary nation; she rescued the entire planet. I don’t curse. I want the USA to come back to God just as you do. Current secular Western culture hurts mankind especially children by prohibiting sexual purity and innocence, and we should all take responsibility if living in free nations. That was my point.

    • Jason Todd

      The ACLU did state they were going to challenge it, effectively stating they want Christians to be completely subservient to everyone else.

      That would make the phrase “freedom of religion” in the Constitution meaningless.

      • Michael C

        The ACLU did state they were going to challenge it

        Actually, that’s the exact opposite of the truth. Do you know what the word is for the opposite of truth?

        Here’s what the ACLU actually said;

        “Today’s executive order signing was an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome. After careful review of the order’s text we have determined that the order does not meaningfully alter the ability of religious institutions or individuals to intervene in the political process.”

        They have no intention of challenging this executive order because it doesn’t actually do anything.

        The ACLU just yawned, stretched, and went back to bed.

        • Jason Todd

          Here’s what the ACLU actually said;

          And here is what they said in a statement dated May 2:

          “The ACLU fights every day to defend religious freedom, but religious freedom does not mean the right to discriminate against or harm others. If President Trump signs an executive order that attempts to provide a license to discriminate against women or LGBT people, we will see him in court.”

          I accept your apology.

          • Michael C

            I had to read your comment twice because I just couldn’t understand how anyone could possibly think that was a logical argument.

            And here is what they said in a statement dated May 2:… [days before the EO was signed and made public] …I accept your apology.

            Okay, let me ask you, do you think that the President signed an executive order that attempts to provide a license to discriminate against women or lgbt people?

            I’m seriously asking you.

          • Jason Todd

            I had to read your comment twice because I just couldn’t understand how anyone could possibly think that was a logical argument.

            Let me break it down for you:

            I said the ACLU had threatened legal action over the Executive Order. You responded by calling me a liar. I showed you have no idea what you are talking about. If a five-year-old could understand this, what is your excuse?

            The rest of your comment is not relevant.

      • steve

        They are the A nti C hrist L awyers U nion, but the ACLJ will defeat them. We will not bow to any idolatry.

  • james blue

    So a Muslim DMV clerk can now refuse to issue driver licenses or voter ID to women? A non religious business owner can now refuse to hire or serve Christians because he disagrees with our faith ? A county clerk can refuse to issue marriage licenses to divorcees?

    As for not enforcing the Johnson amendment, while my love and devotion to our Lord remains, I stopped attending church some time back because I found the services were becoming more
    like attending partisan political rallies and praise and thanks for our lord becoming just lip service.

    As against regulations as I am I feel removing this one may be detrimental to the purpose of the church.

    • Sharon_at_home

      James, try an apostolic church. I was never comfortable in the usual churches, but when I came to the church I’m in, it felt like home.
      They are not into the politics of the world. They teach the Gospel and Jesus’ Love, and worship and praise and other than when he’s off the pulpit, I’ve never heard my Pastor say anything about his own view on the politics in our lives.
      The main thing they teach is about Loving God and Worshiping and Praising. Rather than looking at the things that God feels as sins, we look at the way God wants us to be. We aim at being like Jesus. We look at the good about life, and God’s blessings.
      I highly recommend you try one, if you miss going to church at all.
      I think I should tell you that Apostolic churches are usually filled with Jamaicans. Our church is, and my husband and I are the only Caucasian members. I think the hardest part was adjusting to their cultural ways and that was gradually done over the years, but other than that we look forward to going to church and bible study each week.
      I hope you’ll try one and let me know what you think. 🙂

      • james blue

        “Brand” isn’t the problem.

        I was raised with much simpler “churches” as opposed to “franchise” churches. I’m not suggesting that all churches have become political, it’s just a bothersome trend that appears to have taken over most.

        • Sharon_at_home

          That’s what I love about our church. It’s a small church in a big city.
          But the small apostolic churches should be closer to the one you went to. I know my pastor does not get into Politics of the world. I believe it is something that Apostolic churches don’t do, but I know that some don’t believe in the religion the same way my church does. I guess you might end up having to check out more than one. Well, visit an Apostolic Church if you ever have the chance. They are not like the bigger churches. I hope you find a suitable church someday. it’s good to have the fellowship too. God bless!

  • james blue

    Apparently the ACLU has looked it over and decided not to bring a lawsuit as the EO doesn’t actually do anything other than be “an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome,”

  • Gary

    When the wall between church and state is abolished, and I believe this action by the President has gone a long way toward that end, only too late will people realize the terrible mistake that has been made. Consider Revelation 17:1-6:

    1) Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters.
    2) The kings of the earth committed acts of immorality with her, and those who dwell upon the earth became intoxicated with the wine of her immorality.”
    3) So he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and there I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast covered with blasphemous names. It had seven heads and ten horns.
    4) The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls. In her hand she held a golden cup full of abominations, the impurities of her fornication.
    5) And on her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth.” 6) And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore witness to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astounded.

    The Church is called to win souls for Christ’s kingdom while time lasts. The Church is not called to sit on the throne of the state and legislate religion. We already tried that during the Dark Ages and early Reformation. Many sealed their faith with their blood.

    “And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him” (Mark 12:17).

    • Robert

      Gary the churchs mission is to proclaim the gospel as you said yet not one of the scriptures you quote has in its context any thing to do with separation between church and state. Because God never
      Looked at his two kingdoms he rules over as separate he looks at them as having different functions so that the gospel can be told
      The state role is to punish evil and keep the peace so that the church can preach the Gospel about Jesus .

      • steve

        Thank you Robert, Rev. 5:10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
        And we shall reign on the earth.”
        Daniel 7:21-22 I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.
        vs 26-27 ‘But the court shall be seated,
        And they shall take away his dominion,
        To consume and destroy it forever.
        27 Then the kingdom and dominion,
        And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
        Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.
        His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
        And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.’

    • Jason Todd

      The Church is not called to sit on the throne of the state and legislate religion.

      What church? And how is it doing that?

    • steve

      Let’s go back before the dark ages and even to the old testament where the leaders wouldn’t make a move a move except at the word of the Lord. King David was anointed as Prophet, Priest and King, look at Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah. The twelve Apostles (the #12 represents government) The church is called to influence all segments of society and that was God’s purpose by creating man in the first place and that was to make this planet to look like the kingdom of God on the earth, but man sinned and since then sin entered the entire human race until Jesus (whose DNA came from Father God and not father Adam)and Jesus came to restore those who would receive Him (as many as received Him, to them He gave power to be the sons of God) to original intent and That’s why Jesus taught His disciples to pray by declaring who God is (our Father in Heaven and His holy name) and to SAY, thy kingdom come (the greek means to come from over there to over here) thy will (not Caesar’s) be done on this planet just exactly as it done in Heaven.
      Abraham (a type and shadow of Jesus) was called out of heathen Iraq to start the Hebrew nation as a called out people for the purposes of God. Iglesia (Church) means called out ones, called out from the demonic world system, to manifest God’s system on the earth. Creation is groaning and waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. It’s time for Isaiah 60 to happen in the world. Be blessed

  • Robert

    So will a bakery owned by a Christian still be sued if they refuse to bake a wedding cake for homosexuals who call the sick stuff they do a marriage and have some pervert US Government or state pervert judges support ? If not what good is such a order? Its useless.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      Agreed. The USA should add Christian morality to the human rights’ definition. It’s time.

      • Jeremy

        Is there only one Christian morality? Don’t different Christian sects have different beliefs?

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          Christianity is the same. Christians never support lies( e.g. transgenderism and cross-dressing), sexual immorality ( e.g. homosexuality), or murder (e.g. abortion). The Western mainliners are Sodomic apostates this century; they make the Catholic wrongs look cute.

          • Jeremy

            So which sects are the right ones?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You mean denomination. In the USA, the Southern Baptists and the denominations which are like them.

        • steve

          No, not if they are following the Bible and not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. No scripture of prophecy is of any personal interpretation (that means if their not all on the same page, their not hearing from God and are not in agreement with the scriptures). Those who are true believers have the same biblical values.

          • Jeremy

            So which sects are the correct ones?

          • steve

            I would say only those who have an intimate relationship with Jesus and hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to the church. Jesus said my sheep (followers) hear my voice and another they will not follow. I don’t just listen to every wind of doctrine. John 10:27 Jesus speaking, My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I tell the people in the ministry that I’m part of to know their Bible, because you don’t know if my last name is Jones and I have Kool-Aid in the back. So my answer to you is there are different denominations, but only One Lord and savior and those who call on Him to forgive their sin, ask Him to come into their hearts and be not only Savoir, but Lord (Lord means you give Him ownership of your life and follow His teachings) When it’s all finished, God will separate those that are His and those that are not. The ultimate judge, will judge righteously, between the wicked,(those that follow other gods and Idols vs those that obey His word and follow Him whole heartedly. Jesus didn’t come to start a religion, but to restore a relationship with our creator and loving heavenly Father. Religion is mans way of trying to reach god, but Jesus was Gods way to reach man. I hope you meet Him some day. It will be the most beautiful encounter you’ve ever had. You see He’s more real than anything you can see, hear, fee,l taste or touch. Praying for you Jeremy.

          • Jeremy

            But we are discussing the different Christian sects, each of whom believe they meet the standards you described while believing the other sects are wrong. People have been debating the nature of Christian morality (which is where this conversation started) for thousands of years, without a clear consensus.

        • BuckeyePhysicist

          Of course.

    • SFBruce

      There are about 20 states which forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation. Yesterday’s EO doesn’t change that, in part because the EO doesn’t address it, but more importantly, the president doesn’t have the authority to override state law by fiat. So yes, bakeries operating in these 20 states and other localities which have enacted such laws have to abide by those laws, just like everyone else. If they decide to deny a service or product to gay people that they provide to straight people, they will face some legal problems.

      • IronPhoenix

        Easy enough. Just provide SHODDY service.

        • freethinker4

          Ya there lies the problem you are responsible once you agree in a contract to provide your service?

      • freethinker4

        We have a right to deny any service or goods if we are sickened by the meaning or act, that’s what freedom is? Sexual orientation is not a diversity as the sick and twisted liberal trash are pushing. Can you imagine a photographer having to cover a gay-union it would be disgusting. And No government can force you to offer services period

        • SFBruce

          If there were no legal gray areas, I suppose we wouldn’t need the courts at all. You certainly don’t have to agree with a court ruling, but ignoring one that doesn’t go your way can get you into even bigger trouble. Ask Kim Davis and Roy Moore how that works out.

          • freethinker4

            They are Patriots plain and simple this government including the supreme court has no constitutional right or power to change the definition of a word or to change what is a moral behavior. They overstepped their authority and broke the law and should be impeached? In my opinion they are playing God dictating what is right and wrong and left unopposed by the people our rights and morality will disappear. As for gray areas in law it’s about manipulation of fact to serve there own agenda why is the law for the people different than it is for government. For the masses the law is the law and our interpretation is just ignorance of the law but for government there’s the gray area or there interpretation think about it the people kept there right to keep and bare arms by one vote that’s it. Four judges don’t believe the people have that right by there interpretation when there’s a mountain of writings and quotes by the founding fathers explaining the importance of the people having that very right to retain the ability to take back our government power not IF but when the time arises. We have three branches of power for one thing to keep in check each other when they don’t follow the constitution that means our executive and legislative branches have the power to keep in check the courts? which from what I see they don’t realize or maybe don’t care to exercise that right of the balance of power?

      • steve

        I understand your argument, but it seems the reverse is happening with no consequences, homosexuals deny non-homosexuals rights to their businesses too and what about restaurant services that say we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. How come in one instance it’s okay and another it’s not. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me

        • SFBruce

          I know of no instance where a gay business owner has turned away a customer because that customer wasn’t gay. The vast majority of successful businesses want to attract as many paying customers as possible. If anything, that’s especially true for gay people, who are a minority of the population.

          Any restaurant owner who thinks they can deny service to anyone for any reason is wrong. They are bound by federal law which prohibits discrimination by a public accommodation by race, religion and many other categories.

          These laws are efforts to provide relief to groups which have been historically and unfairly marginalized, It’s an effort to level the playing field; I see nothing hypocritical about them at all.

      • sandraleesmith46

        Those laws are the ones that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and should be abolished. NO ONE should be required to choose between his conscience and his income. Worse; those are specifically targeting Christians ONLY; not applied to homosexuals or Muslims refusing to serve Christians or others they disagree with; and that makes them OPPRESSION ONLY!

        • Mrs Anna Engdahl

          They do apply to homosexuals and Muslims and everyone else. If you are selling a cake just sell the cake and mind your own business.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Only on paper; and those aren’t asking for an “off the shelf” cake but an artistic creation that endorses something we, as Christians simply cannot endorse. That makes it our business.

        • SFBruce

          I’m not sure if it’s anti-discrimination laws in general, or those that bar LGBT discrimination in particular which troubles you, but either way, why don’t you bring a lawsuit, if you feel so strongly about it? Unless you’ve been directly harmed yourself, I doubt if you’d have standing, but even if you pass that hurdle, you’re not likely to be successful. Federal anti-discrimination laws have been on the books since 1964 and, as far as I know, no court has agreed with you.

          There’s absolutely no evidence that anyone is “targeting” Christian businesses. Remember, according to Pew Research, 70.6% of Americans identify as Christian, while only .9% identify as Muslim, so it’s no surprise that the handful of bakeries and florists who’ve turned away gay people are Christian. If a Muslim business owner turns away someone due to their sexual orientation in a locality where it’s illegal, they, too, would face legal problems.

      • freethinker4

        The governments Fed, state or local has no right to force you to (participate) in anything you find uncomfortable or immoral period. The sad thing is 37 states had laws that protected marriage and the criminal supremeless court over rode the people. There is no constitutional law to force people to accept what the majority of people deem immoral. But I do agree they can do what they want but that’s it keep it to them selves who cares don’t push your sick fetish on the people to make there own guilt of it subside.

    • William of Glynn

      “True” Christians don’t own bakeries.

      • Jason Todd

        That is quite an ignorant thing to say.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The West oppresses mankind for refusing to support Sodomy this century, using the colored races as a human shield. It must be stopped.

    • sandraleesmith46

      Yes; and Christian schools are still required to hire perverts to teach or perform other tasks in them, docs and nurses can still be fired for not participating in “euthanasias” or “abortions”, etc, and Christian adoption agencies still required to place children in unsuitable situations with homosexuals. NONE of that is covered.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Good! President Trump is such a man of common sense! Americans really need religious freedom this century. One-man-and-one-woman-marriage is the only right sexual orientation. People should have freedom and rights to reject all others as immorality and to aknowledge only the birth gender as a truth. For religion, doctrines of harming self and/or others should be made possible to reject as well. There should be a freedom for people not to treat demon-worships (Satanism) as a religion. Otherwise, American freedom has defects.

    • sandraleesmith46

      This EO doesn’t protect that or the people who believe it in ANY way! It only pertains to the Johnson Amendment that threatens tax exempt status of churches if the preacher speaks on a subject the IRS and gov’t doesn’t like.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Sad. Something has to teach the Westerners and today’s amoral young generation of child-abusers that immorality and mock-religions have no equal status.

        • sandraleesmith46

          I’ve pretty much reached the place that I believe by the time they get it, it will be TOO late; that Jesus will have already set foot on Mt Olivet, and their own self-condemnation will be sealed.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, thank God that King Jesus is returning soon, with His justice upon the earth this time.

          • sandraleesmith46

            I’m also at the place that yesterday would not be too soon for that return.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God is sovereign. We trust in Him while obeying Him.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Just saying I’m past “ready” for it!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            ??

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    White people are too nervous over the word “discrimination” as if it is the only evil that can exist in the entire universe or something. Non-discrimination is meaningless if the policy includes sins. Everything needs wholesome morality. Being forced to treat the colored peoples must have been some stunning experience for the white race, but that should not be applied to being inclusive of bad things like sexual immorality and demon-worships. Skin colors and sinful inclinations are entirely two different things.

  • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

    That was a pandering grandstand. The Separation Clause of the 1st Amendment already guarantees that all faiths and theological philosophies are protected from government interference. We can expect, however, for future religious strife in the halls of government as one religion is respected and accepted over all or most others.

    Our government is no place for proselytising.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    Religious freedom!?! Good new or bad news? Could this be another instance of Isaiah 5:20, calling evil good and good evil?

    Exactly what is First Amendment religious freedom? How do you suppose Yahweh, God of the Bible, views the 18th-century founders’ enabling any and all religions to proliferate through their land evangelizing on behalf of their gods?

    Hmmm! Could it be violation of the First Commandment? And yet like a moth to a flame, Christians are intent on employing the genesis of their problems as the solution.

    Religious Freedom and Christian Liberty are not the same thing. They are, in fact, hostile to each other. The former is born of the First Amendment. The latter is born of the First Commandment. In 1789, the First Commandment and Christian Liberty were formally sacrificed on the altar of the First Amendment and Religious Freedom.

    It’s one thing to allow for individual freedom of conscience and private choice of gods, something impossible to legislate for or against. It’s another matter altogether for government to enable any and all religions to proliferate through the land and evangelize our posterity to false gods. This is what the First Amendment legitimizes. It is an unequivocal violation of the First Commandment and the polar opposite of the following First Commandment statute:

    ‘[Y]e shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shall worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou … go a whoring after their gods….’ (Exodus 34:13-15)….”

    It’s the First Amendment that the sodomites, lesbians, and atheists hang their hats on and that they’ve been able to utilize for their cause. It’s likewise the First Amendment that so many Christians hang their hat on as if there’s something intrinsically Christian about it when, in fact, it is entirely antithetical to the Bible. It’s thus suicide for Christians to appeal to the First Amendment in any fashion whatsoever.

    For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 11.

    Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines
    the Constitution by the Bible.

  • peanut butter

    It’s still a step in the right direction. I’ll take it… for now.

  • MyLady1

    I don’t understand why people can’t refuse someone on religious beliefs. If I went to a bakery & they wouldn’t serve me because I’m a Christian, I would just go to one that would. It seems the people who want things Christians or religions don’t like always want to FORCE them to do it AND accept it as good. To me they don’t want choice, that’s having at least 2 things, they want one thing, theirs,& force you to take that or nothing. To me, nothing is not a choice, there has to be at least one other SOMETHING. It’s just very mean.

    • Sharon_at_home

      I agree we should have that right because there are compromises and co-operation to help the situations without the need of lawyers. The problem is that a number of people no longer want to compromise too.
      I agree with the “I would just go to one that would” too. That is how it was in my younger experiences. I don’t understand it but maybe they could have staff to serve the people without being concerned about their faith. I’d be surprised if the whole department was religious unless there are only a couple of people(?).
      All of the stories about people suing Christians never speak about trying to reach an agreement before they decided to go to the extent of suing.
      I wish it was possible to start being helpful and take care of things by discussion only, but that’s almost impossible now. It would have made the world a better place and a less selfish one. God bless!

  • Bob

    Double minded man if he believes we can serve God and Mammon together.

  • sandraleesmith46

    This little gambit did NOTHING for the average Christian simply trying to live his faith in the market place; it ONLY, and barely at that, protects that which is spoken from a pulpit during a worship service. So STILL supports the “freedom of worship” rather than freedom of RELIGION concept leftists have been imposing for decades. Freedom of religion means people do NOT get SUED and worse for saying no to participation in an event that violates their beliefs, whether it’s an “abortion”, an “euthanasia”, or a so-called “wedding”; THEN only do we actually have freedom to live our faith! That harms NO ONE; even if it hurts their feelings momentarily; but what’s happening now is harming Christians badly!

  • Dianne

    Trump is a hypocrite and a con-man. He vehemently came out against Kim Davis’s refusal to hand out marriage licenses to homosexuals and he paraded around on stage waving a homosexual flag given to him. Also he sold LGBQT tee shirts for Trump at $30 a piece and campaign buttons for $5. He has yet to publicly state that he has asked God for forgiveness and IMHO is NOW the most divisive president ever in the history of our nation. God help us to keep politics and politicians out of the church. We already have enough problems to deal with already. Satan desires to bring the swamp people in to gain more power over us instead of Jesus.

  • Barbara Ervin

    It seems to me there are those who actively seek out ways to make themselves a fast buck. If I entered a business, made a request and they told me ‘e don’t do that here’ would I sue them? No.

    • Michael C

      If I entered a business, made a request and they told me ‘we don’t do that here’ would I question them and then sue them if I didn’t like their answer? No.

      Nobody has been prosecuted for refusing to provide a customer with a product or service that they don’t already offer to the general public. A more accurate way of describing the situation is as follows;

      If I entered a business, made a request and they told me ‘we do that here for other customers but we won’t do it for you because you’re gay,’ would they be breaking the law? In most of the U.S., no. In most of the United States, it’s perfectly legal for businesses to refuse employment, housing, and service at stores and restaurants to people just because they’re gay. In some places, however, this type of discrimination is prohibited by law (just like discrimination on the basis of religion).

      Further, the executive order in question doesn’t address that type of situation in any way, shape, or form.