On the one hand it seems they are getting ahead of themselves on this. I would think you need evidence of that favoritism to manifest before you can sue someone about it.
On the other hand it seems clear the executive order favors religion despite the constitutional prohibition against government doing that.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole;20186762On the other hand it seems clear the executive order favors religion despite the constitutional prohibition against government doing that.[/QUOTE]
Can you quote the part that does this?
Also, these guys clearly don’t have standing, so their suit doesn’t have a prayer.
This is not my position but the one of the folks in the article. You’d have to ask them to be sure but I guess it is this:
The implication seems to be if Planned Parenthood (a 510(c)(3)) engages in politics they will lose their tax exempt status but if a church (also a 501(c)(3)) does they will not be held accountable for it.
I’m asking you what you meant when you stated in your OP that “On the other hand it seems clear the executive order favors religion despite the constitutional prohibition against government doing that.” Why is this so difficult for you if it “seems clear”???
No, that doesn’t favor religion. It doesn’t say anything about NOT doing the same for non-religious organizations. The RFRA legislation is similar and it has been found to be constitutional…
That’s some dubious reasoning. The rules prohibit non-profits from electioneering and this executive order only addresses giving religious non-profits a pass on that. And I think saying “the RFRA is similar” is a bit of a reach.
No, the EO doesn’t do that. The law prohibits endorsing candidates, and this does not give religious organizations a pass on that. This EO does not give religious organizations any ability to do anything that other non-profits can’t do.
Well, I am of the opinion that this EO does nothing. Unless the IRS decides it means endorsing candidates is ok. But what you said was that it doesn’t favour religion and since the whole thing is “leave those poor religions alone!” I have no idea why you think that.
ACLU seems to think so:
“We thought we’d have to sue Trump today. But it turned out the order signing was an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome,”
The various agencies have discretion to decide who to bring actions against. In my opinion this is a wink and a nod to churches (not mosques or other religions) that they won’t be investigated if those organizations cross those lines. It is still against the law but they will just not get around to going after them.
Do you think Planned Parenthood will be investigated if they engage in electioneering? What about Rick Warren and the Saddleback Church?
In his speech announcing this, he specifically said this was to protect any priest, rabbi or imam in any church, synagogue or mosque. But you clearly didn’t put any effort into understanding this at all before you started this thread so I guess it’s not surprising you’d make this comment.
For Pete’s sake, all the EO says is “allow religious organizations as much political freedom as is allowed by law”. How the frig is that going to be used against anybody?
