For press inquiries, contact:
Director of Communications
202-544-4226 x 305
Both the House and Senate passed their versions of tax reform legislation, and one of the significant differences centered around the Johnson Amendment.
We must protect all of our churches and religious beliefs about marriage and — at the same time — recognize as citizens and Christians that we should treat all equally and without regard to religious differences in the commercial marketplace.
We all have a role to play in safeguarding religious freedom for all.
In one of the most visible cases this term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a Colorado baker has a constitutional right to refuse to make a cake for the wedding reception of a same-sex couple.
These individual acts not only demand responses from our officials, but also from we the people. The images of clergy, standing arm and arm, praying, singing and ministering in the field show the power of religion free from state control.
The Baptist tradition of standing up for religious freedom for all is not new. One of the great privileges of my work so far this year has been to tell that story, a reminder to the many who know it and a welcome surprise to the many more who do not.
While the holding of this decision may be narrow, its tone is unfortunate and ahistorical, as aptly noted in the dissent. Treating churches in a distinct way has long been part of our religious liberty tradition.
In his statements both during and after the hearing, Sen. Sanders seems to conflate Vought’s religious exclusivism with political exclusivism.
Some continue to blur the lines between being generally “political” – which is permitted – and taking a partisan position for or against a candidate’s campaign for office – which is not.
To understand what is truly at stake and to avoid the trap of hysteria in the Trinity Lutheran Church case, it helps to know a little history.