Welcome to the Nonprofits, the show where we examine current events and news stories through the lens of atheism and secular humanism. In our first segment this week, the new regime in Washington is already making moves to give Christianity an edge in the US. Helen Green tell us what's happening.
Well, the most persecuted group in the United States, Christians, are getting a super special office created by Presidents Trump Faith Office, replacing the White House Faith Based and Neighborhood Partner's Office to protect the pearl clutchers from being affected by the Establishment Clause DEI and queer rights. We suspect are the real reasons for this little stunt by the President. I think we can all agree that religion and publics
really need a divorce from one another. The story is from the Telegraph by David Millward on February six, twenty twenty five.
All right, Helen, Yeah, you're right. I mean that that was a very interesting article to read. But the stated purpose of this office is to quote target anti Christian bias in the federal government.
Isn't that a good thing?
Shouldn't we be in favor of preventing bias what's your take on that.
So obviously I'm a fan of preventing bias, but this is where things are doing like a little bit of feveritism, which goes against the establiment clause because we're not supposed to give any religion sort of superiority in this country. But this office is being held by PAULA White, who is a terrible human being. I am sorry, not sorry. And also with this particular office, as I said in the intro, it's really more about not having DEI and
queer rights recognized in this country. So I'm Christopher gar Galadieri. If I pronounce it wrong, I am sorry. He's a professor of politics at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, my home state, and I used to live right by this college. Told the Telegraph of my setition is that the type of bias they are talking about are the policies that are friendly to LGBTQ employees. I think it's
part of the anti DII efforts. More conservative religious folks object to recognizing non Christian faith, even like wishing a happy to Wali. So it is about Christian It's definitely about Christian bias. It's not about, you know, having this sort of like every faith should be respected or non faith. It is about we're giving Christianity the super special spot.
That sounds about right, ej.
I understand that they've also made an interesting choice on who should lead this office.
Can you talk about that for a bit?
Yes, So pauloy Kine claims to see a vision from God and is heading the faith of us No Wela, I wouldn't like to speculate a either she's lying about seeing God or she's very mistaken, which is not exactly something you on and off. However, in twenty twenty, she prayed for the miscarriage of all Satanic pregnancies and embraced an anti Black Lives matterstance. So as Helen was saying, she's a real piece of work, not exactly the best person.
In fact, all of this during the current regime may be her fault if she apparently converted Trump to Christianity and.
I had to at that. Sorry, please keep going. You can tell you can tell just by watching. Yeah, all right, sorry, hes.
Go on much in the vein at Kenneth Copeland, she knew she used nine hundred thousand dollars of tax exempt money from her ministry to buy a private jet. What is it with mega patterers and always buying private checks.
It's all about the blame, right, isn't that doesn't that doesn't that saying that in the Bible, right, the most blame gets you in, right, gets you into the VIP room.
That it was the demon Scott, it's the demons. You can't write with demons, and Paul White obviously worried about demons. I'm sorry.
Speaking of Christian values, you know how they constantly want to get rid of queer people because they do not suit a biblical narrative. She's also against divorce, which is why she's been married three times.
Hmmm interesting Wait, wait she married three times without divorcing.
Is that what you're saying?
Well, well, yeah, checked, Well, Stephen, I want to I want to hear something from you here. We know that religion in general is on the decline pretty much worldwide. Basically, why do you think there's such a strong push here to quote, bring back the glory days of religion.
Well, it's it's like, I don't think it's right to place the emphasis on religion per se. It's not like people are like, hmm, religion time was so good. But like I believe that it's you know, old rich, cis wet, cis hat white guys who are like I missed those days when I really mattered based on my status. And it just so happens that those were in the fifties and part of that was when people were able to be browbeaten into doing exactly what the authority said, and
they missed those days. And so, yeah, religion was one of those pieces, one of those pieces of controlling people, of marginalizing people who make the power people powerful people feel uncomfortable. I think that's what is what we're what the people that are calling the shots are trying to bring back. Yeah, and that religion definitely plays a part in it. And I don't, I don't. I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish that we were capable of saying, you know what, those pieces were in our past, and
they were. We have moved past them for a reason. We have evolved, we have become better. And that's why it's in the rear view mirror, not because we have been downside, not because we've been degrading as a society, as a people, but because we've been improving. We've been doing a better job of listening to marginalized voices of valuing them, and that's why we are no longer in that place. But people like, yeah, it's totally a matter of what is it when what? When people of privilege
lose their privilege, it feels like persecution. It can feel like persecution, fine, but you're not being persecuted. It's just the leveling of the field, which is what we're seeing here, and they don't like it.
So do you think that religion is being used as a tool in this case?
I mean, because clearly the.
Office is for it's a faith office, right, and so it they are using religion at some forms. So do you think that the people in power are using religion? I mean, you know, as Marx famously put, the opiate of the masses, right, I mean are we Is this being used as a tool for manipulation or is it an end uh an end goal in and of itself?
Like I think I think it's a rallying point. It's a familiar touchstone for a lot of people. Like a lot of people, they have it in their past, so it makes sense to to you know, default back onto it. But yeah, it's totally a way of controlling people. Because religion deals with the unknown. We don't have an answer for absolutely everything, and and especially for people in power. If it enables you to have more power to maintain power, then absolutely this is this is a really handy tool
to have in your toolbox. It doesn't surprise me. And it's wrong as hell.
Right right, all right, I have I have a question here for the for the panel here. So, so the US Supreme Court is tasked by the Constitution to be the quote unquote interpreter of the Constitution itself. There's no mandate for the Constitution to remain static. I mean there's In fact, there are elements in the Constitution that were added and or changed after the original was written, you know,
most notably the Amendments to the Constitution. So given that, is there any grounds for claiming that any decision really that the Supreme Court makes could be quote unconstitutional? Let's go to Helen first on that. Ken is it even possible for the Supreme Court to do something, to make some kind of ruling that is unconstitutional?
Now, of course this isn't.
The Supreme Court is not the one supporting this. This office and so We don't know if it's going to come to that or not. But if the Supreme Court rules that this office is acceptable, do we have any grounds to say otherwise.
Well, here's the thing that we've had religion and government. We have a national Prayer breakfast. Every president pretty much has said that, you know, they believe in God, even I suspect a good portion then probably did not, you know, a percentage, you know. So this is this is just another way for them to kind of skim over that, you know, freedom of religion. You can have freedom of religion, and that you know you can. This is skirting around
the law. They're not saying that like you can't practice your religion, you know, as a private citizen. They're just creating an office to create that. So Christians don't have bad feelings. This is a way of skirting around the law because they're not they're not going in the Constitution and making it like an official thing where they're going to so far dictate you know, what could be theratic law.
But it's it's just skimming the surface and until the Supreme Court really looks at what this office is going to because like other other than ones in the article, we really don't know what this office is going to do. Down the line, he established this office, but Paula White, you know, king in charge of it because you know, she a lack of a better term, sex is dick, you know, proverbally, and that's why she got that position. And because when you're under a certain regime, they like
their sickle fans. And so down the line, we're really going to see if the Supreme Court is going to have the step in and is going to have to say, like, no, this actually goes against the establishment clause and we're not supposed to give any sort of president to any sort of religion. So it's a it's a very slippery slope.
But I don't think we know enough about this particular office, and I don't think the Supreme Court is one hundred percent paying attention right now because right now we have bigger fish to fry.
Okay, so you think they're they're kind of I mean, do you think this is like tomorrow a free is a wedge issue?
Right?
Do you think this is just a way of getting a foot in the door and then maybe they're going to expand on that at some later point.
Yes, Because I think as those of us that have looked at Project twenty twenty five knows that it's going to be a slow burn. There's and right now it's a lot of shocking off. But what this actual office is going to do to have sort of that anti anti Christian, you know, savior thing whatever, kind of giving Christianity that little of push. And again, this is not
about like, you know, Christians being persecuted. This is more about denying rights America, rights to people you know that or you have a freedom to discriminate, like hey, I can fire someone because they're gay. That's what this is about. Break Yeah, I'm not gonna be their okay, exactly, Like that's what this is really about. It has really nothing to do with the actual religion. I think it's more that this gives the freedom for people to be big in my opinion. Okay, you know, so we'll see what
happens with this particular office. I'm not feeling super confident about it, but I think it's gonna be gross. It's gonna be bad. But that's what we're waiting for. We're going to see what Paul White and other people that are hard Party twenty five and what the trumb administration really wants to do with this particular office. So it's only you guys. It's going to suck either way, it's going to suck.
So release yourselves. Crash positions, that's what you're saying, right.
Yeah, everybody's going to suck. Everybody, just get getting catch your safety belts on. It's gonna be allowed of turbulent. Some motherfuckers.
Boy can't wait for that. Let's drop over to an ejector seat for a second here, EJ. I wanted to ask you. Helen was talking about shock and awe, right, and so it's really possible that this new office isn't going to have any teeth and that it's just lip service on the part of the new regime in Washington, possibly even a distractor or something along those lines. So, given the religious pasturing we've seen already, do you think this office could be all bark and they'll bite?
So I think it's what I hope is the case, because I hope that the next four years go by relatively uneventful and people can realize, holy fact, that was a mistake. Let's get the country, you know, for lack of a better term, great again. However, I don't think with the way it's going, it's going to have no teeth. I think it is, like Helen was saying, going to
be a fit in the door. I think, paired with some other people from Project twenty twenty five who have been put in power, that is, it will be one step to helping suppress people who they see as undesirable or undeserving of national or federal attention.
Stephen, what's your thoughts on that.
Do you think this is going to be Do you think this is a distract you know, look over here, because if it is, then that means that they're using this to distract us from something that's much much worse.
Like I think that forty five is designed to be a distraction because that's all he does. He loves the attention. So he's going to do absolutely everything that comes into his tiny little pea brain, and he's going to do whatever his sickle fan base is going to gobble up. And this is exactly the kind of thing they're going
to gobble up. They already believe that they're the victims, they already believe that they're martyrs, that they're called to be, that this is all fulfilling what Christ said that people will hate you, and look, they do hate us. And also our Messiah is saving us because he is legislating it so that finally we can have unmake it are the shackles can come off, and we can be the unmitigated biggots that we always wanted to be. That the rule of law is just preventing us from being because
clearly we have a divine right to be right. So, like, is there a game plan? I don't know if there's a game plan. I think whatever whatever opportunity happens to up,
they're going to jump on it. And if nothing comes up, if it's just a one big grift, one big con just to get even more federal funds into whoever's pocket, if it's just to increase the profile of Paula or whomever it is, that whoever is going to benefit from this office, Like, it's not people, it's certainly it's not marginalized people who are going to be benefiting from this bullshit. It's obviously going to be people who are already in
power who just want more power. Right, Who's going to benefit from it in whatever way possible?
All right, well, thank you for that.
I do want to jump back to the Constitution for a second here, specifically something called the Lemon test, the Lemon test, that was a ruling that resulted from the nineteen seventy one case Lemon versus Kurtzman, and that's been largely abrogated to use the words of Justice Samuel Alito since twenty twenty two. Basically, they're setting that Lemon test aside. The Lemon test was originally states that a statute must satisfy three conditions. It must serve a secular purpose.
It must, as.
A principle, as a principal effect, neither advance nor inhibit religion, although they did rule that a secondary effects could be promoting or inhibiting religion, but it's principal effect can't do that, and that it must not result in a quote, excessive government entangled with religion. So going to Helen first, if the Lemon test were still kind of a thing today, how would that reflect on the establishment of this office?
And I want to point out this this office is technically not a law, although it is certainly funded by a law. Right, the budget is a law, and so we can you know, we can still apply this test. So how would the how would this fit? How did this fly with the with the Lemon test, I.
Think God, it gets into that ambiguity thing, which I hate because it's not it can't be officially in office right because we can't have an establishment of religion according to the Constitution, but it's getting cultural funding. So it gets into that little sticky sort of ambiguity place that I hate because I'm neurodivers and I hate ambiguity, like
just tell me to me straight man. So based on the Lemon tests, I think that we're looking at, as I said before, about like this sort of push to see how far this the administration can go, and also that if this is actually going to take president as far as you know, what sort of laws can be established based on it, what sort of you know things when it's when we're talking about like you know, religious bias,
non bias, that sort of thing. So I think that because we're dealing with this place of ambiguity where the Lemon tests actually had like you know, an actual law, they were saying like, hey, not cool man. This is because it's playing right on the edge of politics and religion. It's difficult to see how this is actually going to turn out. And I don't think it can be something that we can directly say this, this is does this past this test, because right now we don't know, and
that's kind of how I'm feeling about it. You know, I don't know if the answers your question, but that's my pain.
It does.
It does.
So you're saying that the Lemon test might not even apply. It might just be you know, we're kind of in a gray area where even even if that were still in effect, even though it's been abrogated for now, but even if it were still in effect, you think it would still be kind of we have to wait and
see kind of a thing. But you know, if we do that, though, if we wait and see what happens to so that we can apply our you know, our full weight of of Supreme Court precedent, in order for us to be able to do that, we kind of have to wait and see it. But by then it'll kind of be entrenched, right.
And that's and that's where like you bring up a real good point because if this is what's actually happening, where we don't want to have to wait, because that means that they're going to kind of bulldoze these laws and they're going to kind of push through, you know, giving more president to one faith over any other faith or lack thereof. And that's deeply concerning because as I said before, this is a lot of shock and off and the whole thing is to have us panic and
then pick up the pieces later. And that's that's the concern, because if they're going to push this office forward and it's actually going to affect real laws, which would affect maybe gay marriage, you know, people you know of different ethnic backgrounds able to propel themselves upwards within you know, getting mobility, you know, uh, discrebinatory laws, as far as like you know, redlining, you know, and these are actual, real concerns, and they can say that like, oh no,
God wants like Republicans to have this certain district. And that's that's a deep, deep concern.
That's a very specific Sorry, go ahead, Stephen.
I had a vision one Republicans in the White House for the next forty years.
And who's going to argue with God? Right, who's going to argue with.
Missionary friends? So all right, I.
Got one last thing I want to I want to bring up here.
And part of what we do here on the nonprofits is is we don't just discuss the facts and the cultural significance and all this stuff, but we also like to talk about public perception and response. So one thing I like to do is anytime we have an article that has user comments down below. I know it's it's dangerous, it's dangerous ground to be treading on, but I like to dive into the to the user comments just to
kind of see what people are saying. And so I had a comment here that I selected, and I wanted to get just a brief, maybe thirty second response from each of you before we wrap things up here.
So this is by a user.
By the name of Peter Beninger, and Peter said Christianity is the most persecuted religion on the planet. For the past several decades, all Western leaders have been protecting, encouraging, and coddling the persecutors. Of course, finally a leader who cares about the victims. Yes, that will definitely bring a course of condemnation from the twisted virtue signalers. I don't know, EJ, what do you do? What do you what's your take on that comment there?
I I don't know what lens he has been viewing the world through given that he called Christianity the most persecuted religion in the world. I don't think he's been well. I don't think he's been looking outside his window. It's had a global influence for well over a thousand years and unfortunately, will for quite a while.
Yeah, all right, Steven, what's your take on that.
Yeah, it's it's it's it's rough when you don't get to do what you want as much as you want anymore, you still get.
To do it.
There's still churches everywhere, a crosses everywhere. We can't I can't. I can't go to my kids music recital without so and so getting up front and praying, because that's just what makes her feel comfortable, like persecuted.
Right, So you're so you're saying that they're not necessarily persecuted. But what you're talking about before with privilege, right, it's it's when you revoke privilege, it feels to the privileged, to them, it feels like you are biased and prejudiced and discriminating and you know, persecuting.
But really it's just you know, leveling. Yeah, Helen will give you the last word here.
So I cackled because it's ridiculous. Who wrote this comment.
Uh, well, we don't need to throw anybody under the bus. It was just a it was just a regular everyday.
Person there out there, out there in the world.
Commenter, My sweet smer child. Let me let me sling something to you. You are not being persecuted against. Basically, if you are in a place of privilege and a quality looks like oppression, that's a you problem. So that's something that you need to work on. Because you can practice your religion, you can love your Jesus, you can go to church and love your Bibles, but it does
not give you the excuse to be a bigot. So I think you should do some self reflection, maybe a meditation, you know, smoke some weed, something like, find yourself, try to find yourself. All right, that's all I gotta say.
Thank you so much hell and I appreciate that. And if you