FFRF files appellate court amicus brief in case attacking Johnson Amendment
Tags:Freedom From Religion Foundation, Politics, Religion
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that threatens an IRS provision prohibiting nonprofit electioneering.
FFRF argues that the lawsuit filed by National Religious Broadcasters and allied entities against the IRS is bogus. The Johnson Amendment forbids nonprofits, including churches, from interfering in political campaigns. The religious groups claim that the Johnson Amendment violates their constitutional rights and that there’s a “threat” of the IRS stripping them of their tax exempt status, even though the government has essentially admitted that the chances of the IRS enforcing it against the plaintiffs are vanishingly small.
The plaintiffs are the National Religious Broadcasters and various churches, and they filed this challenge in 2024 against the Johnson Amendment. This federal law prohibits tax-exempt 501(c) (3) organizations, such as churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for office. In theory, violating the Johnson Amendment could result in the IRS stripping a nonprofit of its tax exempt status, but in practice the IRS has rarely, if ever, enforced the amendment against churches, and it has never been enforced against any of the plaintiffs in this case. The religious groups sued the federal government and then sought a settlement under what they believe to be a friendly administration in an effort to get a court ruling declaring that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional.
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts’ power to only adjudicate actual cases and controversies,” the FFRF brief states. “In this pre-enforcement challenge, the parties ask the court to disregard Article III limitations and issue an advisory opinion about the Johnson Amendment’s inapplicability to the actions of the plaintiffs-appellants. Article III prohibits the court from adjudicating this case for three reasons: (1) the plaintiffs lack standing (2) no adversity exists between the parties and (3) the plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe.”
First, FFRF asserts that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Johnson Amendment. To demonstrate standing in a pre-enforcement challenge, the plaintiffs must establish that there is a substantial threat of future enforcement of the law they are challenging. The plaintiffs here have failed to do so. In fact, they have established the opposite: no reasonable threat of enforcement of the Johnson Amendment. Not only is there a long history of nonenforcement of the Johnson Amendment, but Congress has enacted special IRS procedures that protect churches from enforcement. Even more explicitly, this current administration disavowed any intention of enforcing the Johnson Amendment in Executive Order 13798. The plaintiffs themselves state in their brief that “everyone who litigated this case below agreed on the result.”
Second, FFRF points out that Article III requires genuine adversity or a controversy between the parties. Yet, no such adversity exists in this case. Rather, both parties agree that the Johnson Amendment is inapplicable to the plaintiffs — explicitly denying the existence of any controversy requiring adjudication. However, the plaintiffs are asking the court to rule on this bogus, hypothetical case anyway and issue an advisory opinion based on broad claims that the First Amendment protects houses of worships’ “right” to interfere in elections.
Third, the plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for review. As the plaintiffs’ own brief recognizes, their claims are dependent on a chain of speculative events. The court must not disregard the constitutional limitations of Article III and must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs here thus fail to establish the Article III bedrock principles of standing, adversity and ripeness. These failures are demonstrated by decades of nonenforcement, special protective procedures for churches, the executive order, and the parties’ own assertions. Rather than asking the district court to resolve a legitimate adversarial dispute, the plaintiffs seek a favorable advisory opinion based on a hypothetical. FFRF contends that the court must refrain from entertaining suits premised on attenuated and hypothetical events that may never come to pass.
Because no case or controversy exists, FFRF asserts that the 5th Circuit should affirm the lower U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas’ dismissal of the case.
“Religious groups cannot be allowed to manipulate the court system,” says FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott. “The courts must apply the same rules to all plaintiffs instead of granting religious groups special treatment. We hope our brief sheds light on this manufactured case.”
FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott is the counsel of record for the brief. FFRF would like to thank intern Emma Hanson for help in drafting the brief.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the largest national association of freethinkers, representing atheists, agnostics, and others who form their opinions about religion based on reason, rather than faith, tradition, or authority. Founded nationally in 1978 as a 501(c) (3) nonprofit, FFRF has more than 40,000 members, including members in every state and the District of Columbia. FFRF’s interest stems from its concern that parties to this case have sought to usurp the Internal Revenue Code and fundamental Article III principles in order to favor particular religious organizations. Courts must not stray from longstanding jurisdictional principle s to afford leniency to religiously-affiliated litigants while using the same principles to deny access to other civil rights litigants.
The post FFRF files appellate court amicus brief in case attacking Johnson Amendment appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Christian nationalism takes center stage at Pray Vote Stand Summit
Tags:Freedom From Religion Foundation, Politics, Religion
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling attention to troubling rhetoric at a major recent evangelical gathering.
Prominent government officials and Christian nationalist leaders at the 2026 Pray Vote Stand Summit in Leesburg, Va., repeatedly portrayed political power as a vehicle for advancing their Christian nationalist political agenda. The assembly brought together Christian leaders, issue advocates and government officials for what organizers described as a time of “prayer, inspiration, and action.” The Christian nationalist group Family Research Council hosted the event, which featured elected officials alongside conservative Christian activists and attorneys.
Throughout the summit, speakers made remarkably explicit connections between Christianity, elections, government service and public policy.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, who is only two heartbeats away from the presidency, told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins that government officials should not separate their religious identity from their public roles. After Perkins suggested that openly Christian government leaders were “emboldening the church,” Johnson responded, “I hope so,” adding, “that’s the objective.” Johnson also touted what he claimed is a 24 percent increase in congressional references to God, faith and Christianity since he became speaker.
Johnson portrayed public service through an explicitly conservative Christian lens, telling the audience that leaders should represent the idea of “one nation under God” every day. He encouraged Christians to use their “sphere of influence” to speak openly about their faith and described religion and morality as essential to American government.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., an archconservative Christian, similarly described his work in the U.S. Senate as a religious obligation. Discussing the pressures he faces over how he votes and what he says, Hawley said, “My first obligation’s to the Lord and then to my wife and then to my family.”
Hawley added, “I know that I’m accountable to the Lord,” before mentioning accountability to constituents. Hawley professed that his ultimate hope is to hear God tell him, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”
That religious conception of public office was paired with calls to translate conservative Christian beliefs into federal law. Hawley hawked a “Declaration for Life” that Christian pastors and leaders developed “on the basis of the gospel of Jesus Christ”: to enact such policies as a federal ban on the medication abortion pill mifepristone. Hawley insisted that candidates who “want our support as Christians” should commit to the extremist anti-abortion position.
Perkins made the desired religious character of government officials even more explicit during another panel. Discussing state attorneys general, he declared that recent years have demonstrated “how important having attorneys general that have a constitutional foundation and a biblical worldview are.”
Perhaps the summit’s starkest illustration of its religious double standard came during a panel devoted to Islam and Shariah law. Perkins openly stated his desire for Christianity “to be the dominant religion in our country.” Yet speakers on the same panel questioned whether Islam should even receive the constitutional protections afforded to religion.
Christian Pastor (and former Muslim) Shahram Hadian told the audience, “The problem we have is as long as we label Islam a religion, we will never be able to stop it.” He accused Muslims of hiding “behind our First Amendment” when they lack political power.
The panel portrayed Muslim religious accommodations and civic participation as evidence of an Islamic takeover. Speakers objected to such things as prayer spaces, halal food, the Islamic call to prayer and Muslim representation in police departments. Hadian described Muslim participation in American institutions as evidence that Muslims were moving into a position of dominance.
Former Rep. Michele Bachmann went even further, declaring that Muslims “come into our country seeking to conquer our country and conquer it for Shariah.” She characterized Islam and communism as two totalitarian threats to the Constitution and framed the political stakes as nothing less than the “destruction of America.”
The contrast was striking: The Pray Vote Stand attendees again and again asserted that Christianity should influence government, Christians should use political power to implement their beliefs, government officials should have a “biblical worldview,” and Christianity should become the country’s “dominant religion.” Meanwhile, another faith was depicted as a threat whose claim to religious status itself should be questioned.
Fortunately, the First Amendment does not establish such a hierarchy.
Christian government officials have the same right to their personal religious beliefs as every other American. But public office is a public trust — not a Christian ministry. Government officials represent Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics and Americans of every other belief and nonbelief. Their obligation in office is to the Constitution and the people they serve, not to impose the dictates of any holy book.
The summit repeatedly blurred that critical distinction. Perkins explicitly characterized political disputes as “spiritual issues that are being played out in the political arena” and said there was “warfare” surrounding them. At another point, speakers described the conflict over Islam as a “spiritual battle” being fought through politics.
The Pray Vote Stand Summit offered a revealing vision of Christian nationalism in practice: Christianity elevated as the desired foundation of public life, elected officials encouraged to understand their offices through explicitly Christian obligations, public policy tied directly to biblical teachings, and minority religious beliefs treated with hostility.
That is precisely why the wall between church and state matters. The alternative is realistically not greater religious freedom; it is a government in which the politically powerful get to elevate their religion while deciding which beliefs deserve equal respect and protection.
FFRF will continue fighting for the constitutional principle the summit’s speakers so conspicuously rejected: No religion is entitled to rule, no religion is entitled to favored status, and no American should have to share a politician’s faith to be treated as a full and equal citizen.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
The post Christian nationalism takes center stage at Pray Vote Stand Summit appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.
January 12-13, 2027 – FFRF Co-Presidents to speak to Fredericksburg Religious Freedom Alliance (Fredericksburg, VA)
Tags:Freedom From Religion Foundation, Politics, Religion
The Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker will speak at the 250th anniversary of Thomas Jefferson’s Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, which will be celebrated there on Monday and Tuesday, Jan. 12–13, 2027 as part of Fredericksburg Religious Freedom Week, January 9-16, 2027. Also speaking will be Americans United Executive Director Rachel Laser.
Both presentations will be in the theater/auditorium of the Central Rappahannock Regional Library, on Caroline Street, called the Three Freedoms Corner. The auditorium is close to the site where, in 1777, Jefferson outlined his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom; where, in 1862 to 1863, thousands of men, women, and children self-emancipated behind Union Army lines; and where in 1960, high school students peacefully staged sit-ins and desegregated the lunch counters.
Download this powerpoint to view a small glimpse of these layers of history.
The post January 12-13, 2027 – FFRF Co-Presidents to speak to Fredericksburg Religious Freedom Alliance (Fredericksburg, VA) appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The Christian grift behind Life Surge’s celebrity-packed wealth seminars
This newsletter is free and goes out to over 25,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo, CashApp, or PayPal.
In a nation full of Christian grifters, a new investigation has exposed how one company repackaged a decades-old financial seminar scheme using worship music, promises of “Kingdom impact,” and some of the most trusted Christian celebrities in America.
They use those big names to lure people in, then shake them down for as much money as possible. What remains to be seen is whether those celebrities have any clue that their participation and implied endorsement of the program is ruining people’s lives.
The company in question is called Life Surge, and the way it works is that they advertise massive events for an extremely low cost—A $20 ticket gets you access to a full day of listening to people like former NFL star Tim Tebow, basketball legend Magic Johnson, and comedian Jeff Foxworthy. They share their stories or do their set for a huge speaking fee (possibly as high as $100,000, according to an athlete-focused speakers’ bureau), mixed with a heavy dose of Jesus-talk. Tebow, of course, was an NFL quarterback who had one great season and several not-so-great ones, but he became more famous as an outspoken Christian who was known for “Tebowing” (kneeling to God) after big plays. Since retiring, he’s been a mainstay in Christian circles.
In a sense, these Christian TED Talks are a predictable mix of inspiration, motivation, and sermon. And Tebow is the biggest current draw, with an estimated 20 events schedule in 2026 alone.
What the attendees may not realize is that this is just a way to get them in the doors.
Life Surge urges attendees to follow-up by taking classes to learn more about how to improve their lives—by learning about real estate or the stock market, for example. The celebrity speakers encourage people to act and Life Surge is there to point them in a particular direction. A three-day session could run as low as $97. Many audience members sign up for that, too.
According to reporting by Kiera Butler of Mother Jones, those seminars urge participants to invest even more money where you’re attracted by the possibility of wealth and “Kingdom impact” (to use Christian terminology) to continue your training.
Her reporting was produced in partnership with the incredible Pulitzer Prize-winning podcast Pablo Torre Finds Out. (It’s one of my favorite shows, in case anybody cares.) If you prefer watching your news instead of reading it, take some time to hear their discussion about this story on YouTube.
Butler attended one of these events and sat through eight hours of worship music, testimonials, and (wholesome) comedy before Tebow capped off the day with a message about saying “yes” to God. By then, she writes, many of the people around her had already signed up for the three-day seminars, perhaps after being told they needed to “do it now” because of the seminars’ “limited venue size.”
And those seminars are where they get you.
Those who attend then have the chance to enroll in “SurgeU”—a series of courses promising to “surge your resources and influence through real estate and trade—for Kingdom impact.” SurgeU doesn’t come cheap: Packages range from about $10,000 to $40,000. Should you want to enroll but lack the cash, Life Surge connects you with a third-party lender.
…
The model is clearly successful, albeit not unique; many other companies offer motivational seminars leading to pricey financial classes. What makes Life Surge stand out is its Christian messaging. The company emphasizes the concept of “kingdom impact.” Basically, the more money you make, the more good works you can do, whether through tithing or Christian charity.
It’s the Prosperity Gospel for a new generation of Christians.
As Butler puts it, the pitch here is that “the more money you make, the more good works you can do, whether through tithing or Christian charity.” It’s faith-based “effective altruism”—invest a lot now because this will be good for Christianity later—except a hell of a lot of people are losing money they never had in the first place.
[Karen] Neal’s recollections followed a similar arc. She recalled being encouraged to use the equity in her home to pay for a $13,000 SurgeU real estate course package. “We did take out a line of credit on our house, and we are having to use it right now to pay back the freaking credit card that we got with them,” she said. She and her husband never made any money in real estate—in part because they didn’t have the capital to buy properties. She complained to the company that she found the courses confusing and hadn’t made any money, and eventually, she said, Life Surge offered her a partial refund of about $5,000. Still, the whole endeavor, she told me, was “about a $15,000 mistake.”
Other people Butler spoke to lost even more.
Cathy Luebke said she and her husband bought a $20,000 package to learn more about investing, then borrowed roughly $40,000 on promotional credit cards so they’d have money to trade, all after consulting with one of Life Surge’s “in-house financial counselors.” They made nothing in the stock market. And then, after the promotional period ended on those credit cards, her remaining debt carried a variable interest rate of about 29%, forcing them to take out a home equity loan to pay it down.
Another person who filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission said she was “disabled on a limited income” but she also lost money to Life Surge. “Christians like Tim Tebow made me trust in something that has taken so much money from me,” she wrote.
That’s why the company puts people like Tebow on stage in the first place.
Again, the shocking element of this is how the company is using Christianity—and celebrity faces of Christianity—to make this profitable for the people in charge. The caveats about how success is not guaranteed are offered as disclaimers or in fine print, meaning many of the people willing to spend this money have no idea they’re actually the targets.
While none of the Christian speakers Butler reached out to would answer her questions, you have to wonder how many of them fully understand the scheme they’re a part of. Does Tebow know how his fame is being used to effectively take money from Christians who don’t know any better?
As one Life Surge employee put it:
“You’ve heard all about the people who are losing thousands and thousands of dollars and just are being asked to cash in their 401Ks and piggyback credit cards in order to pay for these classes,” the employee said. “It just doesn’t seem like something a good Christian motivational speaker or pastor would want to be a part of.”
We can debate that last sentence. There are plenty of Christian speakers and pastors who relish the idea of making money on the backs of their followers. But the point stands. How many of these participants would want a company like this tarnishing their own brands and reputations if they really knew how bad they were? It’s entirely possible the speakers believe they’re just supporting a religious organization without knowing anything beyond that. But Tebow has gone further than that in his talks:
… in a recording from a 2023 Life Surge event shared with Mother Jones, Tebow urged the crowd to sign up for classes. “So I know that many of you today have probably signed up for classes, have probably signed up to take the next step,” he said. “I want to encourage you to finish that, to follow through on that commitment, to finish strong.”
Tebow may be the public face Life Surge wants people to see, but the man behind the curtain is founder Joe Johnson, a self-described “serial entrepreneur.” In the early 2000s, he was part of the leadership team behind “Get Motivated,” a group that did the same sort of thing using political celebrities like Colin Powell and Rudy Giuliani. That company, which Johnson later bought with a $12 million loan from one of its own students, eventually folded.
It sure looks like Life Surge emerged from the ashes of Get Motivated, though the group says it was developed “around a distinctly Christian mission from the outset [and] was not an evolution or rebrand of Get Motivated’s model.” Still, the sales tactics are very similar: Hold relatively inexpensive events featuring celebrities, get attendees to sign up for relatively inexpensive introductory investment classes, then encourage them to spend tens of thousands of dollars on more rigorous training packages.
The biggest difference is that there’s a lot more Jesus in the newer version.
When you read the piece, what stands out is how Life Surge uses Christianity to bypass the hard work of earning its customers’ trust. They use worship music to manipulate your emotions, and they use celebrities to grant them moral credibility. And they guilt-trip people into giving them money by saying it’s all for the “kingdom.” This isn’t about personal wealth; it’s about God!
One attendee even told Mother Jones that a Life Surge counselor blamed her hesitation about buying the courses on the devil.
This is what makes Christian grifting so effective. Why bother proving that your program works if you can just convince people that God wants them to say yes?
Life Surge is pointing to their disclaimers that say customers may not get wealthy and could in fact lose money. But when that fine print is surrounded by hours of worship, big-name celebrities, testimonies that seem miraculous, and a call to act now, it’s not like people are going to look at the potential downside, and that’s the point.
The celebrity speakers can’t pretend they have nothing to do with this. Their fame is the main thing being used to lure people in. At some point, the speaker fees aren’t worth the cost to their reputations. Even if a guy like Tebow didn’t design the sales funnel, his credibility helped push people through it. That makes him complicit in what’s happening here. He and the other big-name speakers have a responsibility to cancel future appearances, because if they keep cashing checks without asking serious questions about what they’re being used to sell, it’s just willful ignorance on their part.
On Friday, a day after the report was published, Tebow announced at a football-related event that he would be taking a step back from his work with Life Surge:
“I think the allegations are extremely serious and it’s something that we take very serious,” Tebow said. “For us we are having our team do an investigation but also pausing our relationship until we can learn more about the facts to be able to understand more.”
There’s no apology, no promise to cut ties with the group altogether, and no serious explanation for what he knew and when he knew it. But maybe it’s early. Maybe he really was caught off-guard by the story. If that’s the case, then he still owes his fans an explanation in the days to come. Thank goodness public shaming still worked for now.
Life Surge also reacted to the reporting by responding to… none of the substance. Instead, they said they “strongly” disagrees with the characterization of their company, stood by their products, and defended Tebow’s decision.
