Press "Enter" to skip to content

Never Mind Establishment Clause Violation—On Churches, Spoiled Trump Can’t Even Offer Basic Management Skills

On Friday, Donald Trump declared churches “essential” to social cohesion and demanded that governors open them immediately. Trump then spent Sunday morning the same way he spent Saturday, golfing at his course in Sterling, Virginia.

Trump’s Sunday-morning recreation shows that he doesn’t really mean what he says about church. The White House has no authority to override governor’s public health orders. Trump is simply throwing more spaghetti at the fundagelical wall, hoping trembling white End-Timers will stick with him through November.

If Trump’s hapless staffers do write up any post-hoc executive order to dress up Trump’s poll-driven impulses as something vaguely resembling a plan, we can point to the First Amendment and note that declaring church attendance essential to national unity blatantly violates the Establishment Clause under the Lemon, endorsement, and neutrality tests.

But Trump’s church outburst shows a more fundamental flaw than his ignorance of the separation of church and state. It shows that, despite all his successful-businessman claims, he has no practical managerial skills.

“The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important, essential places of faith to open right now, for this weekend,” Trump wheezed from his podium Friday. Trump was pressuring church leaders to throw out their thoughtful plans for online and drive-through worship and slap together CDC-compliant protocols for protecting their vulnerable congregants from coronavirus in traditional indoor worship services in 48 hours or less. Trump has no idea what practical work church leaders are already doing to organize their substitute services and no idea of all the work that must go into preparing church facilities and church members for a return to anything faintly resembling normal Sunday morning on-site worship. He completely ignores the science-based concerns of church leaders themselves that large group gatherings and typical church activities like singing “bear a high risk of infection.” Trump just assumes that he can say something and it will automatically happen.

Such is the entitlement mindset of a spoiled rich man who has never had to craft or carry out a plan. He has never had to accommodate the wishes or needs of others. He just says what he wants, heedless of practical complications and consequences, and if the people he buys and bullies don’t do what he tells them, he fires them and buys new people to bully.

Even an assistant manager at McDonald’s understands that she can’t just shout, “Make burgers faster!” and beat the drive-through through-put record. She has to understand how burgers are made, where the ingredients and cooking utensils are, which workers could be coached to improve which processes, and what minimum safety requirements must be still be met no matter what. Even a casual churchgoer understands that, amidst a pandemic, we can’t all just rush into churches with out some planning to keep our fellow congregants and pastors safe from contagion.

But then Trump has never been a real churchgoer or a real manager. He’s just a spoiled rich boy with no understanding of how church or anything else really works. He operates from the deeply ingrained assumption that his money and fame entitle him to say and do whatever he wants. If anything comes of his orders, it comes not from innate genius, scrupulous study and planning, or genuine understanding of and concern for the needs and abilities of others, but from servile, terrified minions scrambling to cover for the unclothed tyrant.

Donald Trump doesn’t care about the Constitution. But perhaps more relevantly to the people making excuses for him, he doesn’t even demonstrate the basic management skills we’d expect in far lower leadership positions.

26 Comments

  1. Doug Lund 2020-05-25 11:38

    See…we agree on loads of things, Cory. Especially on the current occupant.

  2. mike from iowa 2020-05-25 14:20

    god is allegedly every where at once. god also told his followers to go in to their closet and pray in solitude so only god can hear the prayer. Explain how churches are essential if god thought they were bunk? Asking for an atheist friend.

  3. Donald Pay 2020-05-25 14:48

    That’s a nice long post analyzing the ranting of a lunatic.

    Here’s what we know: Trump didn’t take more than a a couple seconds to consider the implications of his “order.” Someone whispers in his ear, he gets excited, he yammers on and on about “ordering” something. That’s about the extent of the thought process in this administration. Trump is like a little kid. He thinks things happen because he says them. Let him think that, because it does less damage. This behavior is funny when the kid is eight. Not so funny in a grown man.

    When I heard it, the first thing I thought, which is the first thing I think about nearly everything he says, “That ain’t happening.” Like a kid, he can make a big noise and create a scene, but what he says, and what happens are two completely different things.

  4. Eve Fisher 2020-05-25 14:52

    I know our church (First Congregational United Church of Christ) is going to stick with on-line services, Bible studies, etc. We are all vulnerable.
    Meanwhile, the only surprise about Himself is that it took him this long to go golfing.

  5. Debbo 2020-05-25 15:35

    In Minnesota Gov. Walz has ordered some softening of shutdown rules, but churches were to remain closed. That’s because churches are as bad as bars and sporting events for spreading disease, and worse than theaters. Singing is probably the worst thing you can do to spread an aerosol virus. It’s shouting in tune, hence the correlation to bars and sports spectators. All 3 involve enormous amounts of touching, another big contagion.

    In Minnesota the archbishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of St. Paul had the nerve to claim that churches must open and the RCC was going to do so anyway. As if the RCC, home to the world’s largest traffickers of children and women, has the moral standing to demand anything. The very conservative and small Missouri Synod branch of Lutherans joined in.

    Gov. Walz has been doing his best to remain balanced on this tightrope of managing unruly people, preserving as much economic viability as possible and, most of all, keeping Minnesotans alive. He’s not power hungry because he was willing to sit down with the RCC and the renegade Lutheran bunch and hammer out a deal. Churches can open at 25% capacity and other regs. Watch for a COVID-19 outbreak among them.

    I’m disappointed that Gov. Walz made that deal. I’d have rather seen those two churches fined big chunks of $. Still, apparently a big majority of Minnesotans agree with my opinion of Gov. Walz’ efforts. His approval rating is at 66%.

    In addition, the LTEs in the Strib and comments in FB show that the majority understand that their church is not a building. “Church” is people worshipping together in whatever numbers and methods are suitable at that time. I guess the only churches that closed were Roman Catholic and Missouri Synod. The rest kept going in different settings.

  6. Debbo 2020-05-25 15:46

    I think it was Saturday that the New York Times published the names and 2 line bios of everyone in the state known to have died of COVID-19 thus far. It began on page 1 and took up the entire first 4-5 pages of the paper. Searing and shocking.

    Yesterday I saw the a similar image making the rounds. It was the same front page with columns of names. Superimposed was Heartless Hack playing golf.

    Today he sent out a tweet wishing all a happy Memorial day. “Happy Memorial Day?” Like fun and games? While it’s true that people do indulge in such things, that’s not what this day is about. It’s Decoration Day, Flanders Field, poppies, my grampa crouched over his machine gun in a filthy, waterlogged, stinking trench for days. It’s about bodies rotting in no man’s land between trenches, boys as young as 16 and 17 getting body parts blown off, young girls trying to repair the horrors in field hospitals, families haunted by the fear of a telegram.

    Happy Memorial Day? I expect to see an image of the Vietnam Wall with Heartless Hack playing golf while the vets within the wall recoil.

  7. mike from iowa 2020-05-25 18:27

    Thanks for that, Bucko Bear.

  8. Debbo 2020-05-25 18:44

    My paternal grandfather, machine gunner in WW I. My uncle Ray, ambulance driver in WW II.

    Both survived. Grampa was especially damaged, died at age 64.

  9. John 2020-05-25 19:44

    Memorial Day. Catch it on Amazon Prime. Filmed entirely in Minnesota. My cousin’s husband wrote it.

    Back, generally, the religious topic of Cory’s post. The Catholic Church opened a Cause for Cannonization for Nicholas Black Elk. https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/film-explores-life-of-lakota-who-could-become-catholic-saint/article_5281bc5a-8db6-576b-b7b1-274153762fb6.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1
    Despite the uneven history of that church, his Eminence the Pope is often, rightly viewed by pilgrims throughout the world as the moral authority of the world. I saw this from 2 war zones. Never Catholic and now agnostic, yet, especially in our times of the mango maniac, having a moral authority is good. Here’s to hoping that church is able see through the sainthood for Black Elk.

  10. Debbo 2020-05-25 20:11

    Sainthood for Black Elk is well earned.

  11. Edwin Arndt 2020-05-25 21:54

    To Mike and anyone else who may care. The Bible makes numerous
    references to corporate worship. Google it if you wish.

    Debbo, as a lifelong member of the LCMS I feel obliged to
    respond. Our rural congregation in northeast SD has conducted
    services for the last three Sundays. We have plenty of room for social distancing.
    I don’t know how you would go about fining a church. You might try
    to fine a Roman Catholic Diocese, but fining an LCMS congregation
    might be more difficult. I don’t believe we are as tightly structured as the
    Catholics.

  12. Debbo 2020-05-25 23:47

    Edwin, I’m aware of what you’re saying about congregational worship. I did not say that such gatherings are wrong. I said that “church” is not the building, nor is it necessary for people to meet in a building for “church” to exist.

    The congregations in Minnesota whose leaders were agitating to meet include very large rolls of many hundreds and some of thousands. The idea that they must meet en masse to “have church” is reckless and dangerous to the aged in those congregations. That was the nature of their argument and that’s what angers me.

    In addition, there is a very small subset of people who may or may not regularly attend worship services, but they are the protesters who loll about carrying large compensators and playing military dress up. What the RCC and LCMS have done only encourages the astroturf protesters and their unsafe behavior.

    All in all, it was an arrogant and boneheaded decision by those two churches. I don’t see that it has any reflection on your SD church because it was limited to the St. Paul archdiocese and the Minnesota LCMS.

  13. Neal 2020-05-26 00:47

    It’s a free exercise clause case, not an establishment clause case. The constitution guarantees that the government will not interfere with the right to freely exercise one’s religion. The argument is that governors ordering church shutdowns violates that right.

    Arguably the states’ police powers allow for temporary shutdowns of houses of worship. A week or two. Maybe a month to err on the side of caution. But 3+ months, based on the facts we now have about the virus, is well beyond what’s reasonable, and is absolutely an infringement of constitutional rights.

  14. Debbo 2020-05-26 00:56

    FYI- The History Channel is showing a 4 part mini series on US Grant. The review says it reveals several of the current lies about the “noble Southern lost cause” and other BS.

    The Daily Beast has a review.
    is.gd/MEdWdy

  15. Debbo 2020-05-26 01:03

    Neal, from ABC News:

    “A federal appeals court has backed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s stay-at-home order banning in-church services to blunt the spread of coronavirus, rejecting an argument from clerics that the governor is treading on their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religious beliefs.”
    is.gd/V8kodu

  16. mike from iowa 2020-05-26 06:53

    Neal, see my first post above. There is nothing stopping so called kristians from exercising their religion. As your lord and saviour commanded you. Get back in the closet where only gawd has to listen to sinners whine.

  17. mike from iowa 2020-05-26 06:58

    Edwin Arndt the government could take away your tax exempt status in lieu of any fines.

  18. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2020-05-26 07:43

    Neal, the Free Exercise clause is not absolute. The Establishment Clause is.

    If your religion calls for human sacrifice, the state can, will, and should stop that practice.

    The fact that the Bible calls on believers to worship corporately does not force them to turn off their brains and act recklessly. The Bible does not call on individuals to put each other’s lives at risk by crowding together and spreading coronavirus. Edwin’s church has the good sense to maintain social distance. But I heard about a church in West River where, even though the church posted clear social-distancing rules, one congregant sat right in front, close to the pastor, and refused to wear a mask, saying, “We need to build up our immunity.” After the service, that congregant walked up to the pastor and forced a handshake, declaring, “We shake hands here. We’re not communists or socialists.”

    The Bible with which I’m familiar calls on us to love and respect our neighbors.

  19. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2020-05-26 07:44

    There’s one area in which Trump does exercise a perverse sort of leadership: he sets a bad moral and practical example that many mean, insecure people are too happy to follow—The President says that what I want to do is right, so I’m going to do it, and y’all be damned!

  20. Donald Pay 2020-05-26 10:02

    I’m not sure Jesus cared much about the supposed “need” of people to meet in a church. That, being buildings and congregations, are a human construct. Jesus did his preaching outside to small crowds of peasants. I expect they could easily socially distance.

    Jesus, like a good communist, liked a good free meal, and he even provided one on occasion. Eating together was big for Jesus, and he didn’t exclude anyone. That leads me to suspect Jesus might have had a problem more with closing the church basements to an exclusive club of congregants than in closing the church basement altogether. I mean you can eat outside with the proper social distance, but Jesus would have wanted you to invite the homeless and the poor, rather than stuff your own maw exclusively.

    The one thing Jesus probably would not have liked about social distancing is keeping kids secreted inside away from their play, and him. He liked to talk to and to play with kids, who were less likely to be mean, and corrupted by society, including that of the institutional church of his day.

    Jesus was all about healing and lessening the pain and suffering of people, not so much about making a big show of his piety. Jesus would have done what was needed to be done to keep people safe, no matter what the cost to him, physically or psychologically. If you believe in him, he died for your sins, but you can’t even make a minimal sacrifice by staying safe so others don’t get COVID from you. Some “Christians” you are.

  21. JW 2020-05-26 10:55

    There are far too many overt Christians maintaining a micron width line between old testament legalism and new testament salvation through one’s faith in a living god. The modern-day Pharisees continue to parade in the streets draped in their robes of self-righteous indignation and piety.

  22. bearcreekbat 2020-05-26 11:15

    Here is one test to help determine whether a government restriction on conduct violates the “free exercise” clause:

    Does the law target religious conduct (e.g., a law prohibiting bowing down in front of golden calves) or, as applied, has the government demonstrated hostility towards religion (e.g, have officials treated religious claims less favorably than non-religious claims)? (If so, the law violates the Free Exercise Clause unless the state can show the law is supported by a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored.) [Master Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n (2018)]

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/The Test for Free Exercise Clause Violations.html

    As best I can tell, the rules requiring the closure of churches are essentially identical to the rules requiring closure of other non-religious businesses, so it doesn’t appear that religion is being targeted or treated differently nor that closure orders are based on some identifiable government hostility toward religion. And protecting the community from the spread of a highly infectious disease undoubtedly qualifies as “compelling state interest.” Whether closure orders could be more “narrowly tailored” seems a reasonable inquiry, yet I haven’t seen any argument that there are narrower means than community wide action.

    Under the undisputed facts underlying current government closure orders, Cory’s focus on the “establishment clause” is accurate while claims of “free exercise clause” violations are simply based on a failure to understand how that clause has been interpreted by our SCOTUS.

  23. Tom 2020-05-26 11:20

    As a Minnesotan that likes to check in on occasion on this site, the whole church issue is not an issue whether our or any Governor can prohibit meeting in churches or not. Parishioners from churches of all denominations and religious affiliations were for the most part behind Walz. I have no qualms with Walz or what he was doing…until he started picking and choosing what organizations and businesses or groups could be open or not. Candy stores with 100 people packed shoulder to shoulder is acceptable. Churches are limited to 10. Restaurants with 50 people outside are ok….but churches 10 still. He would tout “science” but then never be able to show any science. He unfortunately shot himself in the foot and made his own mess. Take a broad general approach if you must. I don’t necessarily think that he is anti church or anti religion, but it’s difficult to rationalize what his thinking is or was other than targeting. Some talk about “singing” but even that is a stretch. All he’d have to do is insist on no singing. He’s making recommendations to our bars and restaurants to wear masks when not eating and drinking…and he’s assuming they’ll comply. I think its a stretch to think that Mildred the 80 year old parishioner will NOT COMPLY with no singing orders but that people drinking booze and eating with their friends will be receptive to orders to put a mask back on when not eating. Just my $0.02 across the border!! All the best for you in SD.

  24. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2020-05-26 21:44

    Excellent point, BCB. Church-closure orders aren’t targeting religion; they are targeting activities that pose a public health risk among identifiable and uniquely vulnerable subgroups of the population.

    Now I will grant Tom’s point that if laws or ordinances or executive orders allow crowded carousing at bars and restaurants but not at churches, there might be grounds for a legal challenge.

    But we’re still left with the dangers of managing by impulse: when the occupant of the White House says churches should do something right away, he inspires millions of Americans to pressure their church leaders into acting hastily and dangerously. A good manager realizes that words have consequences and actions require plans. Trump is endangering the lives of pastors, families, and millions of Americans to make a political point.

  25. Richard Schriever 2020-05-27 19:38

    Neal – in both instances (the free exercise clause case, and the establishment clause) the factor that a decision hinges on is whether a law treats a religious organization DIFFERENTLY to any other enterprise on the BASIS of their religious nature. The restrictions on religious gatherings are not based on them BEING religions – but on the numbers of people concentrating in an area being an ENDANGERMENT to them selves and to others.

Comments are closed.