Episcopal Church Goes Full Anti-ICE … Anti-Reality
Religion in America is protected by the Constitution. Religions also enjoy 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. They pay no tax on income on purchases. That latter privilege has a stipulation, however. They are prohibited from engaging in partisan politics.
But they do. Some call it a grey area. But it is not as grey as the religious community would have us believe. Churches often use their power and authority over the faithful to push political agendas. Most recently, we see that in the Episcopal Church – which is taking a politically partisan stand against President Trump and his immigration policies.
Washington D.C. prelate Bishop Mariann Budde recently issued an Internet video message to the world. It was a highly political message cloaked as a religious sermon – and is part of a number of Episcopal bishops producing such videos. Since their messages are partisan, they lack objectivity and devotion to truth over the biased narrative.
To get a fuller grasp on the Episcopal Church’s political messaging, it is educational to take a detailed look at the messages and offer the counterpoints. In this case, I have chosen Budde’s video as a good example.
Budde opens by accusing ICE of “doubling down on incredibly aggressive tactics [against] of all manner of people with no accountability and complete immunity from the federal government”. That is minimally hyperbolic, potentially provocative and factually untrue. The shooter in the Alex Pretti case is currently the subject of a federal civil rights investigation. The shooter in the Renee Good case is under a normal federal investigation that ensues when a death is involved. There are also federal civil suits in both cases.
Budde goes on. “We are seeing how children are detained. We saw how a child was used as bait to lure his parents outside.” No, we did not. Those claims are emotionally charged but misrepresent the truth and the facts. ICE does not arrest children. They will take temporary protective custody when there is no other option. In the case of little Liam Ramos, he was outside with the father. (The mother recently took to the media to describe her “terror” in seeing her child being taken away. This is the same woman who refused to open the door when ICE agents made several attempts to return Liam to her. It was then that the father suggested that the child stay with him.)
ICE has had tens of thousands of children dropped at its doorstep – brought into the United States and lost by the Biden administration. The Trump administration is making a major effort to find and reunite those children. One would think the Episcopal Church would be interested in the welfare of so many by working with the administration to find those kids. But that does not comport with Budde’s or the Episcopal Church’s political mission.
Budde continues. “We’ve seen people dragged from their homes and their cars.” Yes, that is what arrests look like – especially when the person resists. Most of those (more than 75 percent) you see being “dragged” from homes and cars have criminal records or have been ordered to be deported. Others are in violation of their status. And others, including American citizens, are being arrested for interfering with or attacking police – including violent attacks. There is no swooping down on communities and rounding up folks. They are targeted arrests of those eligible for deportation.
Budde goes on. “We’ve seen peaceful protesters being attacked simply for filming what they see – and in two instances, we’ve witnessed via video two Americans shot and killed.” Sorry to say, that is a lie. Truly peaceful protestors are not being “attacked” by ICE. The confrontations come with protesters interfering with police or breaking the law. One can also see – including Budde – scores of individuals “filming” without incident.
What Budde also witnessed, but chooses not to see or admit, was the tragic death of two violent protesters who were resisting arrest. The shooting in the Good case seems clearly justified under policing rules and policies. The Pretti case is more nuanced, and we should withhold judgment until the various investigations are completed. Neither of them, however, was the sweet gentle people portrayed in fabricated pity stories in the left-wing media. And both of them would be alive today had they not resisted arrest.
And more from Budde. “We are also seeing across the state of Minnesota hundreds of thousands of people who are determined to care for their neighbors and to stand up for the communities that they love. People are volunteering to help teach children who are sequestered in their homes, donating food, delivering groceries. We’ve seen doctors and nurses protect their patients.”
“Hundreds of thousands of people in the state of Minnesota” is a gross exaggeration. Budde omits, however, that we also saw hundreds – perhaps even thousands — of people protesting violently – attacking police personnel, vehicles and property. These were not protesters. They were rioters.
And more from Budde. We’ve seen neighbors holding candlelight vigils in the dark, and one Friday afternoon, tens of thousands walking in sub-zero weather to show in common witness solidarity and support for those in Minnesota who are being targeted with a policy of fear. And they are asking us not only to tell their story, but to connect the dots and to see what is happening in Minnesota. How it’s related to a national policy of extreme immigration enforcement that we are witnessing in state after state.”
There is no “policy of fear”. The only individuals who need to be concerned are those who are scheduled for deportation. Budde calls it “extreme immigration enforcement … in state after state.” In fact, what we are seeing is almost unique to Minnesota. In almost every other state, ICE is doing its job with the cooperation of local officials and without interference from the populace. Budde’s hyperbole borders on outright disinformation — lies.
Then there is Budde’s call to action. “And you may be wondering – as many of us are – what is yours to do. I am here to say that this is a moment for all of us across the nation. And we will all do something – something large, something small. We can look around and see who among our neighbors are in need of our care. We can donate our resources to agencies that are providing protection and care and also subscribe to those media outlets that are determined to show us what is happening on the ground. We can use our intellectual power and willingness to learn, to understand our constitutional rights and what the federal government has the right and authority to do and what they cannot do according to the Constitution. We can use our political power. We can, of course, vote when the elections come up in the coming year. But we can also express our thoughts in local media. We can subscribe to petitions. We can write our senators particularly now this week when funding for the agencies is being debated. We can also care for each other – and that is perhaps that is the largest and most important message of all that this is our moment to determine who we areas Americans. Who we are as the United States of America. And I believe, and I have seen, how Minnesota is showing us all … is showing us the way. And we can follow their example wherever we are and do what we can to recreate and restore fabrics of kindness that sustain us all.”
In this, Budde places her Church in the heart of the left-wing political movement – the left-wing establishment. It is a highly politically partisan call for action. Budde and the Episcopal Church are not addressing the issues with clarity, honesty and objectivity, but rather participating in the left-wing partisan narratives – the propaganda. These kinds of provocative statements do not mitigate the situation, they exacerbate it.
So, there ‘tis.
Larry claims this issue Constitutional, but I think only as far as the 1st, which if applied here would mean, no problem with anything they say. And the part of the Constitution providing the powers of taxation because, as Larry notes, and must abide by tax rules and regulations, aka tax law which is the part of the Constitution this is all about. It’s really about the tax code and IRS rules.
Under the 1954 “Johnson Amendment” to the tax code, all 501(c) organizations, including churches and religious institutions, were prohibited from endorsing or opposing political candidates, donating to campaigns, or directly intervening in campaigns for public office. Violating this rule can result in the loss of tax-exempt status, not Constitutional law. Under the Johnson Amendment, churches can engage in limited lobbying and speak on political issues.
Yes, that was Lyndon, and yes, that’s a tax code amendment and it’s not in the Constitution. soft BUSTED since Larry probably just misstated. And it’s not just churches, but any 501c — think about that and The Heritage Group or the Soros Foundation making Larry’s concept of grey area quite broad. The IRS has a hands-off policy, like not tossing the yellow flag in football playoffs: the rule seems to be “let the boys play” and not pursue cases.
Churches may engage in non-partisan activities such as voter registration drives, hosting candidate forums, or encouraging voting. Religious leaders can speak on public policy issues and moral issues (e.g., abortion, climate change) ad Infinitum, as long as they do not connect the issues to endorsing or opposing a specific candidate.
Larry mentions “grey area,” which appears to be created more by the Fed not wanting to dive into these waters given the difficulty of getting a guilty verdict. Sort of like indicting Trump; just not worth the bother given the difficulty of getting a guilty verdict, or in Trump’s case, even getting to court.
Many attempts to broaden or restrict the Johnson Amendment, all have failed. Some states, like NJ have constitutional laws on top of this. New Jersey’s state constitution has been used to prohibit public funds from being used for church-related purposes for example. We’re real shits that way, catch our nativity scene act or protection of HUGE bears and giant herds of deer in densely populated areas.
Religious leaders have the same rights as citizens when outside the church not using church resources or assets in doing so.
Tis the truth, so help me God, and yes, please, help me, God. I can use all the help I can get :>)
Apparently, the Johnson was clarified recently, in 2025, here’s what a non-profit 501 had to say: *https://www.501c3.org/irs-johnson-amendment-church-free-speech/#:~:text=The%20Johnson%20Amendment%2C%20enacted%20in,left%20churches%20uncertain%20and%20cautious.*
How quickly Mr. Hoist took a ‘humanitarian” issue and turned it into a political issue. How easy it is to call ” asylum seekers” Illegal immigrants”. Just turn the lens 15 degrees and the perspective changes. The Conservative Right thinks they have the answers to the country’s problems. They are going to fix (Legislate) the problems of this country with one administration, one strong force, with God as their director, on “Day One”. The truth said, these are very complex issues that are Humanitarian. To simplify any of this and think you can “fix it”
militarily or politically is nieve and quite frankly not very intelligent at all. Use of force is only a temporary fix. What is being fixed is still not clear. One thing is for certain, God is on both sides and the propaganda rhetoric is all any of us hear.
If only we could talk and listen to each other. What we do is not the only issue here. How we do it is just as important. Could we possibly find solutions to these issues without military force, political rhetoric, religious bias or legislating our way into the corner of prohibition? Could we stop putting labels on any of us, and see each other as having valid issues that could be solved by respecting the dignity of every human being? If Mr. Hoist thinks he is the expert on conservative political views, perhaps he needs to listen to the experts on other subjects such as psychology, sociology, and PHD religious leaders of all types? We live in a world of diversity, and the more intelligent we become as a society the more complex our lives are. Some folks don’t respect that truth or wish to minimize it by saying it doesn’t exist. The reality doesn’t change and the problems do not go away by stuffing things into a closet. Oversimplification to control the masses is not working. Perhaps, we should try coming together to find out what people really want in spite of the government. Who is around to start that conversation?
Diane you are like Dunger and the other leftist idiots on this site. You want to pick and choose what laws you want enforced. Typical airhead
Uncle Tom, Seth, and Hammon would rather call names than engage in an sort of discussion. Diane puts up a thoughtful and coherent response to which Tom offers childish spew. These “citizens” have a blind-sided hatred of the left which they see as negatively affecting their lives. Not true, if we were gone, they would be just as miserable, but there it is. They can’t even spell my name right instead call me excrement to demean me and make them happy for some perverse reason. Uncle Tom, Seth, and Hammon have a fascination with dung.
Tom’s claim is that we just want to pick and choose what laws are enforced. That’s stupid and I am pretty sure he does not even know what he’s talking about as he parrots his administration and talking heads. My question is what law does he think we don’t want enforced? The law against jumping the border is a misdemeanor Federal offense that the State, under State’s Rights, a Constitutional item, the States are under no LAW to enforce. Especially if the Federal Government is not providing funding to the State to help them in their efforts. ICE is breaking many laws in their abject failure to deport 20M people of the brown persuasion.
States limiting cooperation with ICE, often called “sanctuary” cities, most often are not breaking federal laws. They invoke the 10th Amendment’s “anti-commandeering” doctrine, preventing the fed from forcing states to enforce federal regulatory programs. Tihis includes restricting the state and local law enforcement from sharing information, honoring detainer requests, or participating in 287(g) partnerships.
So again Tom, in the spirit of free speech and open discussion borders, what law are you talking about?
Key aspects of this legal movement include: Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Supreme Court rulings allow states to decline to use their resources (police, jails) to enforce federal civil immigration law. Also, ICE Detainer Disputes: Many jurisdictions refuse to hold immigrants beyond their jail release dates based on ICE detainers alone, as courts have frequently ruled these requests are voluntary and sometimes violate the Fourth Amendment. Lastly, States often refuse to turn over individuals based on administrative warrants (issued by ICE) rather than judicial warrants (signed by a judge. This is just one instance where, IMO, ICE is breaking the law to avoid due process and become their own judicial system.
States are following the law, using the Founder’s concepts of State’s Rights, that I am pretty sure Uncle Tom supports. Some States view this differently. States like Florida and Texas, require local cooperation, other states (e.g., Illinois, Washington) have laws specifically restricting it. Federal lawsuits sometimes challenge these, arguing they impede federal authority.
These state policies are a legal challenge to the extent of federal authority over local resources, rather than a direct violation of criminal law. The Federal Government has challenged this in court. And lost.
Again, Tom, in the spirit of free and open discussion: what laws? Or just more names?
Again, no Democrat that I see has an issue with catching criminals and following all laws, including deportation. Many people, not just liberals, have an issue with deporting legal asylum seekers, separating families, or entering private homes without a valid judicial warrant, or consent. I find that detaining individuals without probable cause violates constitutional rights. The fact ICE has a “memo” with instructions to do this means the entire organization is acting illegally. The ACLU adds that using tricks (ruses) to enter homes without consent violates Fourth Amendment rights. And then there the whole mess of any valid legal scrutiny regarding the use of deadly force, most recently in a number of Minnesota cases where agents claimed self-defense in situations that didn’t pose an immediate threat.
Note that I don’t call for defunding ICE, but think ICE needs an overhaul, top to bottom, starting with Mission, Vision and Values that make sense in context of our laws and Constitution. Just “get the 20M brown people out” any way you can is not that. And they need to be accountable for their actions with Good, Pretti, and anyone else they have shot dead. Make an example, not an excuse. Be transparent, not in-house opaque.
Say yes or no, Dunger. Does most blue states order the local law enforcement to not enforce the immigration laws or cooperate with the ICE patriots? You just showed up that you’re a liar. Along with the summer of Floyd civil war, laws were broken and ignored then. But Dunger is trying to impress Diane and Joyce.
Harold: Generally making demands is not conducive to having a gentleman’s discussion.
You demand: “Does (sic) most blue states order…..” I do not know, do you? And I indicated the legality of that for those who do. ICE patriots is a opinion on your behalf. Where did I lie, or did you lie calling me a liar on this?
Summer of Floyd is a new topic not necessarily germane to this one, but civil war? Surely you jest. Laws were indeed broken starting with the right-wing murder of Floyd by a guy you no doubt think a patriot. What laws were ignored, please clarify.
Impress who? There’s no Joyce here; your imagining things. Are you trying to impress Tom; he is your type after all.
Nice not having a free and open discussion starting with your rude attack on my name to self-aggrandize yourself. Little men with potty mouths.
Now ain’t that just queer for a once-called Christian group?