By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A report reveals that access to a pre-inauguration interfaith prayer service with President-elect Trump and Melania requires a minimum $100,000 donation or $200,000 raised for inaugural ceremonies. Higher donations grant access to additional events. The location and participants remain unconfirmed by the Trump transition team, which has not responded to requests for comment. This contrasts with previous inaugural services, some of which have drawn criticism for perceived political motivations and exclusionary practices.
Read the original article here
Reports surfaced regarding a pay-to-pray scheme allegedly connected to President-elect Trump’s inauguration. The supposed plan involved a high-priced interfaith prayer service where attendees could worship alongside Trump and Melania.
This “opportunity” wasn’t exactly free; participation required a hefty donation. The price of prayer, it seemed, was set at a minimum of $100,000 to Trump’s inaugural ceremonies, or the ability to raise $200,000.
The alleged scheme offered various levels of access, with larger donations granting more exclusive experiences, including a cabinet reception or a candlelight dinner. A donation of $1 million or the ability to raise $2 million earned six tickets to a suite of inauguration events.
This pay-to-pray service contrasted sharply with previous inaugurations. In 2017, Trump attended a prayer service at St. John’s Episcopal Church, a tradition that seemed more inclusive and less transactional.
The 2017 service also sparked controversy, particularly given subsequent events where protesters were forcibly removed from Lafayette Square, including a seminarian and an Episcopal priest distributing water. This sparked outrage among religious leaders, highlighting the complexities of religion and politics.
The potential 2025 service location remained undisclosed. St. John’s Episcopal Church, where Trump previously attended a service and later posed with a Bible amidst controversy, wasn’t confirmed as the venue. Washington National Cathedral, another potential location, already announced a “Service for the Nation” in October, emphasizing a focus on national unity rather than any specific administration.
Adding to the controversy, an evangelical Christian musician and activist, Sean Feucht, announced plans for a “Revive in 25” worship service that were later complicated by a church’s denial of permission. This underscored the broader clash of religious and political agendas surrounding the upcoming inauguration.
The situation raises questions about ethics, fundraising, and the intersection of religion and politics. The high cost of access to the alleged prayer service has drawn considerable criticism, particularly from those who perceive it as exploitative of religious sentiments and potentially illegal.
The controversy also raised eyebrows regarding the potential for abuse of political processes, the conflict of interest in such a highly religious system, and concerns that this might simply be another method to bypass campaign finance regulations.
Many saw the situation as a blatant example of grifting, taking advantage of faithful followers willing to pay exorbitant sums for what some considered a meaningless gesture. Others viewed it as a cynical display of power, using religion for political gain.
Regardless of individual beliefs, the reports presented a striking contrast between traditional religious practices and the increasingly transactional nature of contemporary politics, inviting debate about the role of religion in the public sphere and how those beliefs align with the political climate.
The reported cost of access—ranging from $100,000 to $2 million—sparked widespread discussion about the motivations of both the organizers and those willing to pay. The high price tag raises ethical questions about the commodification of faith and the potential exploitation of religious beliefs for financial gain.
Ultimately, these reports raise fundamental questions about the ethics of political fundraising, the separation of church and state, and the potential for blurring the lines between religious belief and financial gain. The matter remains a complex and deeply divisive issue for many, prompting wider discussion about the responsibilities of both political leaders and their followers.