The Algemeiner cited B'nai B'rith International in its article discussing the reaction of Jewish groups and American politicians to the U.N. resolution condemning Pres. Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. 

US legislators and pro-Israel organizations roundly condemned Thursday’s vote at the United Nations opposing President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the Jewish state’s capital.

In the House of Representatives, Republican lawmakers led by Colorado Rep. Doug Lamborn submitted a resolution that expressed “strong disapproval” of the General Assembly vote. One of the measures incorporated into the resolution called on “the President to direct the Secretary of State to submit to Congress a report on the status of United States assistance provided to countries that voted in favor” at the UN.

“This vote today at the United Nations is yet another example of the general assembly’s anti-Israel nature,” Lamborn — who introduced the House resolution with Reps. Peter Roskam, Lee Zeldin, Kevin Cramer, Ron DeSantis and Jeff Duncan — said in a statement. “It is also an attack on America’s right as a sovereign nation to place our embassies where we choose, and to recognize the reality of capital cities around the world … American generosity will not be taken advantage of and our friendship will not be taken for granted.”

Several Jewish and pro-Israel groups issued statements criticizing the UN vote.

Stephen M. Greenberg and Malcolm Hoenlein, the chairman and the executive vice chairman/CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said, “The shameful one-sided, anti-Israel UN General Assembly resolution adopted today is another stain on the United Nations that willfully disregards historic facts, distorts the present day reality and reinforces Palestinian resistance to negotiations with Israel.”

Pastor John Hagee, the founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), said, “We applaud Ambassador Nikki Haley for her commitment to enforce consequences upon those who failed to stand with Israel and America today.”

The Anti-Defamation League’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, noted in a statement: “Given the numerous pressing issues confronting the world today it is absurd that the General Assembly called an emergency special session to, yet again, excoriate Israel. No emergency special session has been convened to discuss Syria or Burma or a myriad of other crises. Indeed, of ten such special sessions convened over the history of the UN, seven have been convened with the sole purpose of criticizing Israel. ”

World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder said he “lamented” the resolution.

“The World Jewish Congress deeply appreciates the United States’ strong reaffirmation of its support for and friendship with the State of Israel, and for its clear reiteration of its policy regarding this issue,” Lauder said. “As President Trump rightfully said in his announcement earlier this month, Jerusalem is a holy city for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, all of whom deserve to have their religious sites and historical connection respected. This too is a fact that will never change.”

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein and ZOA Director of Special Projects Elizabeth Berney stated: “Like all anti-Israel resolutions, this new proposed anti-American, anti-Israel UN General Assembly resolution violates UN Charter Article 80 (the Jewish people’s clause) — which preserved the Jewish people’s rights to reconstitute the Jewish homeland and closely settle the Palestine Mandate, which encompassed Jerusalem.”

American Jewish Committee (AJC) CEO David Harris asked, “Why should Israel alone be denied the right to determine its capital? The connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish people is more than 3,000 years old; all of Israel’s government offices are in Jerusalem.”
​
B’nai B’rith International (BBI) expressed appreciation to Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo for having “stood by the United States and Israel.”

​The wards of the VA’s Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus on Campbell Avenue are normally pretty quiet on weekends.

But Sunday, the quiet was broken by more than a dozen carolers from two New Haven area Jewish groups, singing Christmas carols and handing out presents. The groups, Horeb Lodge of B’nai B’rith International and youth group BBYO, are carrying on a tradition that began back during the Korean War.

“A lot of these people don’t have anyone to come and visit them,” said Harold Miller, president of the local B’nai B’rith International chapter, said.

Miller said a variety of area business donate gifts to give to the patients.

“Foxwoods gives me decks of cards for each patient and this year (there are) caps as well,” Miller said. “BIC Pen gives me pens and I’m able to get various other items which are donated such as toothbrushes, crossword puzzle books, wallets and water bottles.”

A candy store in Wallingford donated chocolates, which Miller said the group left at all the nurses stations.

By the time the visit was over, Miller said the group expected to visit more than 100 patients. Clifton Holloman was one of the lucky ones.

The Middletown man, who is an Army veteran, was being visited by his wife, son and granddaughter when the carolers came by. But Holloman said his spirits were buoyed by the visit.

“I was feeling a little down, but seeing them really made my day,” Holloman said of the carolers.

“This is really wonderful,” Holloman’s wife Marcella said.

Among the Christmas Eve revelers who visited patients at the hospital was Mike Romeo of West Haven, who has played Santa Claus during the visits for the past decade. Romeo served in the Navy for 30 years and said he considers the visits as a way “to pay back my brothers and sisters.”

“They stood by me and mine,” Romeo said. “There’s no way I can repay what they have done for me.”

Romeo and his wife, Faith, also give back to area veterans in other ways. The couple provides meals for homeless veterans on Thanksgiving.

Ryan Lurie is head of the Connecticut Valley chapter of BBYO. Lurie said he is happy to be a part of the B’Nai B’rith holiday tradition “because it brings such joy to the patients here.”
​
“It’s not like I’m really doing anything on Christmas Eve and the patients really brighten up when they see us singing,” Lurie said.

Many of us have heard the adage that boys don’t grow up, their toys just get more expensive. In the case of Potomac, Maryland, resident Bruce Pascal, the adage should add: his toys get more valuable.

Pascal, who serves as Cushman & Wakefield’s executive managing director professionally, and who has been a fixture in the Metropolitan Washington commercial real estate leasing industry for over 30 years, has amassed one of the largest and most valuable Hot Wheels collections in the world. It includes over 4,000 toy cars, prototypes that were never released to the public, wood carvings that were later turned into car molds, store displays, original artwork by Otto Kuhni (the Hot Wheels famed graphic designer), and much more. The collection has been appraised at over $1 million and includes the rarest and most valuable Hot Wheel ever produced: the Pink Beach Bomb rear loading Volkswagen bus prototype, which is worth over $150,000.

His passion for Hot Wheels and his professional background motivated Bruce to follow the advice he shares with clients and to build his dreams. In doing so, he converted his home office into a Hot Wheels-inspired room that would have befit the President of Mattel in the 1970s. The office includes bright orange tracks that flow from the floor to the ceiling, a custom desk, a wall-sized mural of Hot Wheels artwork, and display cases to hold his cars.

Beyond Hot Wheels, Pascal and his family have served as volunteer lay leaders in the Washington Jewish community for four generations.

 “My passion first and foremost starts with the State of Israel,” said Pascal. “Two organizations that I have been a part of all of my life are State of Israel Bonds and B’nai B’rith International.”

Pascal’s grandfather, Fred Kolker, founded the Kolker Poultry company in 1930 out of Union Terminal Market. Kolker was the first Washingtonian to buy an Israel bond in 1951, the year that David Ben-Gurion founded the organization and the State of Israel started to issue bonds to foster the development of the then three-year-young nation. Pascal recalled his grandfather telling him that he thought he was “kissing the money away and never thought that Israel would be able to repay him, but what greater thing to do in life — what could be better than to help the State of Israel?”

Pascal first purchased his own Israel bond in 1974 following his bar mitzvah. His grandfather asked him if he made any money at his bar mitzvah, and after instilling in him the importance of supporting Israel, Pascal purchased an Israel bond when he was just 13 years old. He has continued that tradition by purchasing one or more every year since then. Pascal has used Israel bonds as gifts, donated them to charities, held them in his retirement account, and has served in various volunteer leadership positions, including as chairman of Israel Bonds New Leadership Division. He and his wife have also hosted the Israel Bonds Ambassador’s Ball and were recognized at the Israel Bonds Prime Minister’s Club Dinner for their support of the organization and the State of Israel over the years.

As with Israel Bonds, Pascal’s personal and professional lives have intersected through B’nai B’rith International. “My first dates were because of B’nai B’rith’s AZA group,” he said, “and then in college, when I found myself with not enough money to buy a meal plan, I made a deal with Hillel at GW, which was started by B’nai B’rith, and I cooked Shabbat dinners and got free meals. Once again, in a time of my life when I needed help, B’nai B’rith was there.”

Later in Pascal’s career, he worked with B’nai B’rith to help them with their office space needs and later joined their board, eventually becoming a senior vice president, one of the highest volunteer positions in the international organization. Pascal is passionate about the Jewish concept of tikkun olam (fixing the world). “The Jewish world needs people to step up and help to make the world better,” he said, “and to help safeguard the State of Israel. It is not going to happen by itself. I feel that it is everybody’s responsibility to do what they can.”
​
“When I joined B’nai B’rith, I quickly found out that they have a program to help the small Jewish community in Cuba. I’ve since been there 17 times,” said Pascal. “Every time I bring a package of medicine … it is helping a community, and it is magnified. There is a special pride that Jews can help Jews wherever they are around the world.”

In yet another example of its legendary hypocrisy, the United Nations Security Council last week held a special meeting to condemn US President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

One after another, council members ostracized the move, predicting dire consequences as a result. The statements sounded like a “Chicken Little chorus” of naysayers predicting the sky would fall as a result of the December 6 declaration. One had a sense these pronouncements of disapproval had been written years ago, given the rote-like redundancy of their flawed reasoning. To these diplomats, Jerusalem has been a no-go zone for decades, a kick-the- can-down-the-road issue if there ever was one.

For nearly 70 years, the State of Israel, admitted to the United Nations in 1949, has been the only country whose designated capital is not recognized by the international community. Never mind the more than 3,000 years of Jewish history there or, since the founding of the modern State of Israel, it is the seat of its government, parliament and other state institutions. Even recognizing the western part of Jerusalem, where most of Israel’s government institutions sit, was off limits to nearly all of the international community.

The last two countries to have located their embassies there, Costa Rica and El Salvador, moved to Tel Aviv under intense pressure from the Palestinians and their Arab League friends years ago.

As a result of the Trump declaration, the Palestinians declared their predictable “three days of rage” and the Palestinian “observer” ambassador to the UN has called for the decision to recognize to be rescinded.

Here’s the real hypocrisy at the UN.

While the recognition of Israel’s capital evinced groans and diplomatic catcalls, the very same United Nations upgraded the status of the Palestinians to “nonmember state” status in 2012. The Palestinians were admitted to UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) as a full member in 2011.

And in other international fora, similar recognition has been accorded, most recently at Interpol, where the Palestinians are now a full member. Only last month, the General Assembly again agreed to fund a group of committees whose only purpose is to advance the Palestinian narrative.

At last week’s Security Council meeting, US Ambassador Nikki Haley once again called out the world organization, saying: “The UN has done much more to damage the prospects for Mideast peace than to advance them.”

She’s right. Accustomed to getting special treatment at the UN, the Palestinians and those who support them and their relentless efforts to delegitimize Israel have been served notice by a cold splash of reality.

For the past nearly 25 years, since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the UN has been used as a battering ram against Israel, whose resolutions have provided cover to the Palestinians to avoid negotiations with Israel.

The “days of rage” threat rings hollow, as the Palestinians have run out of excuses.

Are they serious about a resolution of the conflict, or would they prefer the path they have perfected at the UN, which is to promote their nihilistic campaigns of defamation against Israel? If anyone is entitled to rage, it is Israel, which has led an orphan-like existence in a world body supposedly founded on higher values.

The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital suggests new thinking about right and wrong in how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is viewed. Will other countries, long tied to the misguided conventional wisdom of the past, follow suit? Let’s hope the first test, at last week’s Security Council meeting, is the last at which hypocrisy on this issue reigns.

On Dec. 12, 2017 B'nai B'rith International was featured as a question on JEOPARDY!

"We warmly welcomed President Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In doing so, he rectified a seven-decades old wrong. Jerusalem is both the ancient capital of the Jewish people--going back more than three millennia--but also its present capital, as well. It is the seat of Israel's government, its parliament, Supreme Court, and other departments and agencies.

Every country in the world has a right to designate its own capital – and have it recognized in the international community. Until President Trump’s declaration, Israel had been denied that right. We now hope that other countries will follow suit.

The president made a compelling and convincing case for the for the decision to recognize, not only by referencing the attachment of the Jewish people to the ancient and present capital, but by also mentioning the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which the U.S. Congress adopted to encourage the relocation of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Nothing in the president’s declaration detracts from the importance of pursuing a process that leads to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Indeed, the president referenced the need for a peaceful resolution of that conflict. The present and several past Israeli governments have offered numerous times to sit at the negotiating table to effectuate an agreement between the parties. That agreement cannot be imposed from the outside; it must be both parties who accomplish that task. We believe that one impediment to moving that possibility forward was the unfair, intentional international equivocation regarding Israel’s capital.  The Trump Administration’s decision  recognizes what everyone knows to be a fact: that Israel’s capital is in Jerusalem, which speaks to the permanence and the place of Israel in the region. That message can have a positive impact on the long-term hopes for peace.”

​If he was hoping for thunderous applause from American Jews, President Trump may be disappointed.

His announcement on Wednesday that he will recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital went down well with those on the political right, who have urged the step for years. They will be telling him so at the White House Hanukkah party on Thursday, they said.

But other Jewish leaders said they were more worried than glad, fearing that the precipitous step would inflame tensions in the region, provoke more terrorism, put peace with the Palestinians even farther out of reach, and worsen the diplomatic isolation of both Israel and the United States. They say they wish he had held off, as previous presidents have done.

“Jerusalem has always been the most delicate issue in every discussion about peace,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest branch of American Judaism. “So we’re very concerned that the announcement will either delay or undermine the very, very important resuming of a serious peace process.”

Debra DeLee, the president of Americans for Peace Now, an affiliate of the Israeli peace group Shalom Achshav, said, “Trump is causing severe damage to the prospects of Middle East peace, imperiling lives, and degrading U.S. leadership.”

Jewish leaders are not alone in expressing alarm at Mr. Trump’s move. Leaders of other faiths decried it, including Pope Francis, Orthodox patriarchs and Protestant church leaders in Jerusalem and the United States, and Muslims around the world.

The words Mr. Trump uttered about Jerusalem sounded sweet to many Jews, who belong to a faith that has revered the city as its holiest site for 3,000 years. But Jerusalem is also holy to Christians and to Muslims, and for centuries, attempts by any side to take exclusive control have brought trouble. Balancing their competing claims has been seen as the stickiest part of any peace effort.

American Jews are debating whether Mr. Trump’s decision to end decades of diplomatic ambiguity and recognize the disputed city as the Israeli capital will help or hurt Israel and the effort to make a lasting peace with the Palestinians, who also want Jerusalem for their capital. Israel, long a unifying cause among American Jews, has increasingly become a point of polarization, and Mr. Trump’s move may only deepen that divide.

There were Jewish leaders who celebrated the president’s announcement on Wednesday as a historic step that many Jews had longed for, and that might shake things up enough to restart the stalled Middle East peace process.

Nathan J. Diament, executive director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, said in an interview, “This move puts pressure where it belongs, which is on the Palestinians and on Arab governments that support the Palestinians, because it sends the message that you can’t just sit still and refuse to be in negotiations and, oh, by the way, sponsor terrorism, and think that everything is just going to remain status quo.”

Mr. Diament said he was not troubled by the criticism from some Jewish leaders that by taking sides on Jerusalem, Mr. Trump had squandered America’s ability to serve as an “honest broker,” or mediator, between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“I’ve never thought the U.S. should be an honest broker,” said Mr. Diament, who represents the largest umbrella group of Orthodox Jews, who comprise about 10 percent of American Jews. “Pro-Israel Americans aren’t looking for the U.S. to be an honest broker. Pro-Israel Americans are looking to the U.S. to be a friend to our ally, Israel.”

Jewish organizations like B’nai B’rith International and the American Jewish Committee also welcomed the president’s decision. But liberal groups that are critical of the right-wing Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu and have a following among younger Jews, like IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace, protested the move and promised to rally against it.

They said it would lead to the displacement of more Palestinians from East Jerusalem and would entrench the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian land, deepening grievances and making any kind of acceptable compromise harder for both sides to reach.

American Jews as a group tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and only about 24 percent of Jews who voted in the 2016 presidential election backed Mr. Trump. Soon after he took office, Mr. Trump appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as his chief negotiator for the Middle East, but neither man has made public any details about the contours or status of the process.

In his speech on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that his decision on Jerusalem “is not intended in any way to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement.” He continued, “We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis, and a great deal for the Palestinians.”

A question that divides many American Jews, though, is how to get there.

At the Hynes Convention Center in Boston, where more than 6,000 leaders of the Union for Reform Judaism were beginning to gather on Wednesday for their biennial convention, the group’s president said he was still assessing Mr. Trump’s speech.

To hear Jerusalem recognized as the capital of Israel, Rabbi Jacobs said, “is the age-old dream of the Jewish people and all of us who love and care about Israel.”

He said he was open to the possibility that the move could prove to be a “concrete step closer to a peace process.”
“Or will it be an obstacle?” he said. “Only time will tell.”

Staring at a massive defeat, Jewish groups dealing with social safety net issues are looking at the tax plan about to reach its final stages in Congress and hoping they can snatch a few small victories.
The hope is that lawmakers in reconciling the bills preserve a number of elements of the Senate bill, particularly deductions for medical expenses.
B’nai B’rith International, which advocates for elderly care, cited the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the slashed taxes in the Senate and House bills would increase the deficit to $1 trillion. The measures ostensibly compensate for tax cuts by removing loopholes and deductions, but overall there will be massive losses in revenue.
That could encourage lawmakers to slash medical coverage entitlements like Medicare for older Americans and Medicaid for the poor, according to B’nai B’rith, the largest national Jewish sponsor of low-income housing for seniors.
“Many seniors would be at severe risk to not have the funds to cover basic housing, medical and food costs” were Medicare subsidies cut, the group said in its statement.
The House of Representatives passed its bill a month ago, while the Senate advanced its version over the weekend. This week, the chambers are likely to go into conference to reconcile the bills, which President Donald Trump wants on his desk before Christmas.
Jewish groups said they hoped the Senate version prevails for a number of reasons:
* It preserves deductions for medical expenses. Most Americans who apply for the deductions, which apply if one’s medical expenses exceed 10 percent of one’s income, are older than 65.
* It has more expansive allowances for itemized deductions which should also translate into more charitable giving. “As more taxpayers continue to itemize, there will be less negative impact on charitable giving,” the Jewish Federations of North America said in a memo Monday to its constituent federations.
The Senate version also does not touch current reporting for donor-advised funds, a giving vehicle that permits donors to work with federations to determine where the funds are spent on charitable purposes. It’s a key way for federations to expand their donor base.
“In sum, the Senate version of HR 1 is more favorable than the House-passed bill to the charitable sector in general and federations in particular,” William Daroff, the JFNA Washington director, said.
* It does not remove the so-called Johnson Amendment, which blocks houses of worship from directly campaigning for political candidates. An array of centrist and liberal groups oppose removing the amendment; conservative Christian groups want it gone. Trump campaigned last year for the removal of the amendment, named for Lyndon Johnson, who led its passage as a Texas senator in the 1950s. The House version removes it.
* The Senate version includes an amendment that would allow $10,000 a year in tax-exempt student savings plans to go toward private school tuition. Currently the monies are dedicated almost solely to university tuition. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced the amendment, which is favored by Orthodox Jewish groups, and it passed by a 51-50 margin — Vice President Mike Pence cast the deciding vote.
“We are supporting the expansion of 529 education savings accounts to the K-12 level,” said Abba Cohen, Washington director for the haredi Orthodox Agudath Israel of America, using the tax code name for the savings plans. “Tax-free withdrawals will include private school tuition and could help some parents in the community better afford the high cost of Jewish education.”
One disappointment for Orthodox groups: At the last minute, lawmakers removed an amendment backed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, that would have allowed parents sending their children to religious school to deduct 25 percent of their tuition fees as a charitable contribution. The Orthodox Union had backed the amendment.

The Johnson Amendment is the part of Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) which bans tax-exempt institutions from participating in political campaigns. The US House of Representatives has passed H.R.1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, to revise the Code. Section 5201 of H.R. 1 would modify the Johnson Amendment. In contrast, the tax bill pending in the US Senate does not address the Johnson Amendment.
H.R. 1 gets three things right and wrong about the Johnson Amendment. The Conference Committee charged with reconciling the House and Senate tax bills should craft a true safe harbor from the Johnson Amendment limited to internal church communications. This safe harbor should protect internal church communications from government interference while keeping intact Section 501(c)(3)’s general prohibitions on the use of tax-exempt institutions (including churches) for political campaigning and legislative advocacy.
The first thing H.R. 1 gets right about the Johnson Amendment is that section 5201 of H.R. 1 would protect from the Johnson Amendment the statements of religious organizations. H.R. 1, if enacted into law, would thereby abate the untoward governmental intrusion the Johnson Amendment causes into the internal communications of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other sectarian congregations.
Section 5201 has been criticized by many organizations, with which I often agree, including the Anti-Defamation League and B’nai B’rith International. I suspect that these critics do not appreciate the extent to which the Johnson Amendment interjects the IRS into the internal deliberations of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious congregations.
In Revenue Ruling 2007-41, the IRS held that the “issue advocacy” of a tax-exempt group may “function […] as political campaign intervention” and thus cost the group its tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3). Thus, for example, a minister who from their pulpit supports or opposes DACA, BDS, the Confederate flag, or same-sex marriage thereby jeopardizes their church’s tax-exempt status under Code Section 501(c)(3) if that advocacy is deemed by the IRS to pertain to “a prominent issue” in a contemporary political campaign.
Such governmental interference with the internal communications of religious congregations is troubling as a matter of free expression and religious liberty. The drafters of H.R. 1 correctly decided to restrict the church-state entanglement the Johnson Amendment causes by requiring the IRS to monitor and evaluate the internal conversations of religious congregations.
The House-Senate Conference Committee should amend Code Section 501(c)(3) to create a true safe harbor for internal church communications which do not cause more than de minimis additional costs. The second thing H.R. 1 gets right about the Johnson Amendment is the course H.R. 1 doesn’t take. H.R. 1 eschews the more radical alternative articulated by President Trump and others who would abolish the Johnson Amendment altogether. While free speech within religious congregations should be protected from government interference, tax-exempt entities should not be used to funnel tax-deductible contributions to political campaigns. While it protects the statements of tax-exempt organizations, Section 5201 of H.R. 1 properly leaves intact the Johnson Amendment’s general ban on political campaigning by tax-exempt institutions including churches.
Third, Section 5201 only provides protection from the Johnson Amendment if no “more than de minimis incremental expenses” are incurred in making a statement. The protection of Section 5201 would be lost if, for example, a church, synagogue or mosque purchases television time to broadcast a sermon or reproduces the sermon in a newspaper ad. This limitation on incremental expenses provides additional assurance that churches and other tax-exempt entities will not be used to channel tax-deductible contributions to political campaigns.
To summarize , if enacted into the Internal Revenue Code, Section 5201 of H.R. 1 would protect the ability of a minister, rabbi, or imam to speak from a congregation’s pulpit without jeopardizing the congregation’s tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) as political campaigning. This amendment of the Code would affirm free expression and religious liberty while retaining the general ban on political campaigning by religious and secular tax-exempt entities.
The first thing H.R. 1 gets wrong about the Johnson Amendment is the original version of Section 5201 of H.R. 1 would have only protected the internal communications of churches and church conventions. Unfortunately, H.R. 1, as passed by the House, extended this protection to all secular and sectarian tax-exempt institutions. The problem which requires a solution is the Johnson Amendment’s interference with religious congregations’ internal discussions of issues of public import.
Second, Section 5201, if enacted into the Code, would not protect church communications from Section 501(c)(3)’s prohibition against “influence(ing) legislation.” Under current law, if a minister in their  sermons supports or opposes particular legislative proposals, they  jeopardizes their congregation’s tax-exempt status if these comments are deemed by the IRS to be “substantial.” Section 5201 does not address this statutory impediment to religious expression.
Finally, Section 5201 of H.R. 1, if enacted into law, would require the IRS to determine if a particular statement merits protection from the Johnson Amendment, because the statement is made “in the ordinary course of the (church’s) regular and customary activities” furthering the church’s religious purposes. This statutory language unacceptably entangles church and state by mandating the IRS to monitor churches to determine their “regular and customary activities” and to assess which activities further the churches’ religious purposes.
In sum, while Section 5201 would reduce one aspect of the church-state enforcement entanglement stemming from the Johnson Amendment, Section 5201 as passed by the House would still entangle church and state unacceptably. Section 5201 of H.R.1 would require the IRS to survey and evaluate internal church communications to enforce Section 501(c)(3)’s prohibition on substantial legislative advocacy and to determine if such communications are made “in the ordinary course of the (church’s) regular and customary activities.”
In light of the foregoing, the House-Senate Conference Committee should amend Code Section 501(c)(3) to create a true safe harbor for internal church communications which do not cause more than de minimis additional costs. This safe harbor should be limited to churches and other religious congregations and should protect their internal discussions from characterization as either political campaigning or as substantial legislative advocacy. This amendment of Section 501(c)(3) should be a true safe harbor and should not authorize or require IRS inquiry into churches’ “regular and customary activities.”
A true safe harbor along these lines would provide a balanced approach, continuing the Johnson Amendment’s ban on the use of churches and other tax-exempt entities to channel funds to political campaigns while protecting internal church communications from untoward church-state entanglement.

The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday passed six resolutions described by a watchdog group as “anti-Israel,” marking 70 years since the world body’s partition plan carved Mandate Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state that never came to be.

The measures were nearly identical to a yearly slate voted on by the body to mark International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, but in a marked shift, Britain voted against one of the resolutions, breaking with its European neighbors.

Wednesday marked the 70th anniversary of the historic UN resolution in favor of partitioning the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab. For the UN it was also declared the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People,” leading to a slew of annual resolutions, some of which condemned Israel and which were described as “one-sided” by pro-Israel monitoring group UN Watch.

For the first time, Britain voted against a resolution calling on Israel to give the Golan Heights to Syria, saying that the resolution, proposed by the Syrian regime, threatened to undermine the credibility of the UN.

The resolution does “little to advance peace or mutual understanding,” explained the UK delegate, adding that “it is unnecessary and disproportionate.”

“The Syrian regime’s intent is to use this additional resolution to deflect attention from its own criminal actions and indiscriminate slaughter of its own citizens,” he said. “The duty of the General Assembly is to draw attention to international humanitarian law violations, wherever they occur. This resolution risks discrediting that vital responsibility.”

The day was marked by the international body with one resolution which expressed “deep regret” that 50 years had passed “since the onset of the Israeli occupation and 70 years since the adoption of resolution 181 (II) on 29 November 1947 and the Nakba without tangible progress towards a peaceful solution.”

Another resolution condemned Israeli violence and “acts of terror” against Palestinians without any mention of violence committed by Palestinians.

The resolution expressed “grave concern also about all acts of violence, intimidation and provocation by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians, including children and properties,” and condemned “acts of terror by several extremist Israeli settlers.”

Another resolution was criticized for only using the Muslim name for Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.

“This rebrands Judaism’s holiest site as solely an Islamic one,” the B’nai B’rith organization complained, in a statement that rejected the resolutions as part of an “anti-Israel narrative that is pervasive at the UN.”

Speaking at an event to mark the day, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stressed that the only path to peace was the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

“I remain convinced that the two-state solution is the only one for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” he said. “The resolution of this conflict would also create momentum for greater stability throughout the region.”