# "Atheists Sue President Trump Over His ‘Religious Liberty’ Executive Order" -- Any substance here? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 5, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951 "2017-05-05T20:57:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/1 "2017-05-05T20:57:34Z")
A recent article in the Daily Beast, [Atheists Sue President Trump Over His ‘Religious Liberty’ Executive Order](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/05/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order), reports that the Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing the President Trump because his recent [Executive Order on Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty](http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/text-executive-order-promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty/) means the government will favor religious non profits. 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. Opinions about this? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/2 "2017-05-05T21:30:08Z")
[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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/3 "2017-05-05T21:44:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you quote the part that does this? From the article: > [@](#): > > Andrew Seidel, staff attorney at the FFRF, told The Daily Beast the order’s language is vague enough to benefit religious organizations at the expense of non-religious groups. “It’s very poorly worded. Trump and the White House have made it very clear that they intend for this order to ease restrictions on churches, especially on Evangelical churches,” Seidel said. > > Meanwhile, the lawsuit claims secular nonprofits will still be prohibited from endorsing candidates or otherwise participating in the upcoming 2018 elections if they want to keep their tax-exempt status. Those groups are classified as 501(c)(3). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/4 "2017-05-05T21:47:12Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > From the article: The part of the EO, not what someone else thinks about it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/5 "2017-05-05T21:52:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The part of the EO, not what someone else thinks about it. 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: > [@](#): > > Sec. 2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All > executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the > greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, > respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to > engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the > Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted > by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any > adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other > religious organization on the basis that such individual or > organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues > from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character > has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as > participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf > of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the > Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term > “adverse action” means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; > the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax > deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; > or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax > deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit. 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/6 "2017-05-05T21:58:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This is not my position but the one of the folks in the article. 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”??? > [@](#): > > 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. 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… ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/7 "2017-05-05T22:15:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/8 "2017-05-05T22:27:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/9 "2017-05-05T22:33:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/10 "2017-05-05T22:40:01Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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](http://www.thewrap.com/aclu-mocks-trump-religious-freedom-order-but-isnt-suing/): “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,” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/11 "2017-05-06T01:42:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. I’m not so sure. This seems like signaling to me. 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? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/12 "2017-05-06T01:50:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’m not so sure. This seems like signaling to me. > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/13 "2017-05-06T02:09:45Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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. Uh huh…Trump said something so it must be true. Gotcha. He’s a huge friend of Muslims and Jews can’t get enough of him. I must’ve missed it. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/14 "2017-05-06T02:33:46Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > [ACLU seems to think so](http://www.thewrap.com/aclu-mocks-trump-religious-freedom-order-but-isnt-suing/): > “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,” To add to that, several religious conservatives are seeing the EO as not giving them what they wanted: > **[Why Conservatives Are Slamming Trump's Religious Freedom Order - The National...](https://thenationalpulse.com/archive-post/conservatives-slamming-trump-religious-freedom-order/)** > > This morning at a conference in the White House Rose Garden with conservative and religious leaders, President Trump unveiled and signed an executive order on religious freedom that he says fulfills many of his campaign promises to be a champion of... > [@](#): > > Princeton Professor Robert George, a leading advocate for religious freedom in the US and internationally, called the order “a betrayal”: > > > [@](#): > > > > Robert P. George > > > > The religious liberty executive order is meaningless. No substantive protections for conscience. A betrayal. Ivanka and Jared won. We lost. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/15 "2017-05-06T02:41:15Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/16 "2017-05-06T02:56:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > To add to that, several religious conservatives are seeing the EO as not giving them what they wanted: > > [Why Conservatives Are Slamming Trump's Religious Freedom Order - The National Pulse](https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/conservatives-slamming-trump-religious-freedom-order/) Is it even possible for Trump to give them what they want via an executive order? (I really do not know but I suspect not.) ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/17 "2017-05-06T03:17:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Also, these guys clearly don’t have standing, so their suit doesn’t have a prayer. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/18 "2017-05-06T07:43:21Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Uh huh…Trump said something so it must be true. Gotcha. > > He’s a huge friend of Muslims and Jews can’t get enough of him. I must’ve missed it. My bad. 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? ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/19 "2017-05-06T11:48:57Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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? Even if it can’t be ‘used’, it is by its nature as a government pronouncement an endorsement of religion over non-religion. That isn’t allowed. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951/20 "2017-05-06T11:53:24Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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? So the only point of the EO was to allow Trump to show off that he can sign his name like a big boy? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-sue-president-trump-over-his-religious-liberty-executive-order-any-substance-here/785951.md?page=2)