We are often led to believe that it is the Christian thing to do to keep the southern border open. But is that really the case? This question is all the more acute in our nation’s battle against the spread of COVID-19.

President Biden is acting as if there were one standard in dealing with COVID for law-abiding American citizens and another standard for those who break the law—as in the example of the illegal aliens streaming through our porous southern border. Gary Bauer in his End of Day Report (7/29/21) notes:

“While the CDC is forcing vaccinated Americans to mask up again, and the big teachers’ unions are suggesting our schools might not reopen in the fall, Biden is leaving our southern border wide open. Six thousand illegal aliens are pouring across the southern border each and every day….These migrants are untested. They’re unvaccinated.  Many are refusing to take the COVID vaccines. And many are infected with COVID.” Furthermore, he reports that at least 50,000 migrants have been released throughout the country. And outbreaks of COVID are being reported in border detention facilities.

Dr. William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, wrote an open letter in late July to the Secretary for Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra: “According to recent whistleblowers, children living in HHS migrant shelters are living in subhuman conditions….After enduring a long, arduous journey, these children are sent to camps where Covid is running rampant. In the girls’ tents, lice is left untreated while the boys turn riotous because of the poor conditions they are forced to endure during their detainment at HHS facilities.”

Meanwhile, Governor Greg Abbot of Texas is trying to close the border—in part to stop the spread of COVID—and yet he’s getting direct resistance from the Biden administration. The Associated Press (7/30/21) reports:

“The Biden administration sued Texas…to prevent state troopers from stopping vehicles carrying migrants on grounds that they may spread COVID-19, warning that the practice would exacerbate problems amid high levels of crossings on the state’s border with Mexico.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, tasked by Biden to head the border crisis, says we have to address the “root causes” of why these people are coming before we can seal the borders. One may well ask, “Why is that our burden?” And besides, that could take forever. It’s like saying that before we can administer first aid to a shooting victim, we have to solve the crime first.

The founders of America made it clear when they created the Constitution that their goals were to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Clearly, Biden’s open borders violate many of these key goals.

Dr. Richard Land, president emeritus of Southern Evangelical Seminary, says,

“Open borders is national suicide. Polls show us that 170 million people in Latin America would like to come to the United States. I don’t blame them, if I lived in one of those countries, I’d want to come here too. But we cannot absorb 170 million people.”

Such an overrun of our country could ultimately cause a collapse into anarchy.

Dave Kubal, CEO and president of Intercessors for America—a group dedicated to praying for our country—notes, “We are a nation of immigrants….I completely believe in an immigration system, but it has to be legal…94% of those people that come across the border, don’t show up for their amnesty case, and so they’re just living illegally in the United States of America.”

But aren’t open borders compassionate? Gary Bauer once told me, “To suggest that because God loves all human beings including migrants, that the United States must open its borders and allow literally millions of people to walk into the country would mean that God was endorsing the end of America as we know it. This country can’t support and pay for millions of millions of people coming into the country.”

But, again, aren’t open borders the Christian position? In his book, We Will Not Be Silenced, Pastor Erwin Lutzer writes, “I reject the notion that those of us who believe in secure borders are racist and lack compassion….without enforced border control, we have in effect, lost our country. The long-term consequences are devastating.”

The left often chafes at the idea of securing the border—although I’m sure these same people lock their own doors at night. How can our country be safe and secure if the borders are wide open? Isn’t it more compassionate to keep the borders closed, especially at a time when many illegal aliens are dying or getting sick in the migration—and especially as we are experiencing new and perilous strains of COVID?

I recently read a very interesting, and brave, editorial from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. It appeared on AFA’s national news service – One News Now. He points out the contradiction in the efforts to remove statues all across America because of how the culture now views the words or actions of certain individuals which can often cloud how they are remembered today for their larger contributions.

The “woke” liberal culture has now even questioned statues of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and some abolitionists who worked to end slavery because they may have said things in certain ways reflecting their era about race or slaves that are frowned upon today. This cancel culture movement has even questioned Martin Luther King’s teachings and gone after people like Christopher Columbus and George Washington.

Donahue applies this new revisionist view to the homosexual movement. He wonders why corporations went over the top in promoting June as “Pride Month” when so many founders of the Pride movement were child molesters, supportive of child molestation, or other abhorrent behaviors.

For example, Harry Hay who is considered the founder of the modern gay rights movement supported adults having sex with minors stating that “young males would love it.” Hay admitted that he was molested by a 25-year-old adult male when he was 14, referring it as a “most beautiful gift.” He criticized homosexual parade organizers who tried to exclude NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association which advocates for pedophilia and the repeal of all age of consent laws) stating, “NAMBLA walks with me.” Hay also had connections to the Communist Party including setting up an organization of homosexual communists in the early 1950’s called the Mattachine Society.

Brenda Howard, who organized the first gay pride march in 1970 and was known as the “Mother of Pride” was an open advocate for sadomasochism, bondage, and polyamory.  Larry Kramer, founder of ACT-UP was also an advocate for NAMBLA. Gilbert Baker, the creator of the rainbow flag, was anti-Catholic and also reported to be a member of NAMBLA. Harvey Milk, a San Francisco politician memorialized in a Hollywood movie, and praised by President Barack Obama, was known to have had a live-in relationship with a young, runaway, 16-year-old boy when Milk was in his 30’s.

Donahue opposes the removal of many of our historic figures’ statues but wonders why these morally compromised founders of the gay rights movement are not held to similar standards when their beliefs and actions are far more problematic. “Why is it OK to trash Harry Truman but not Harry Hay?” Donohue asked.

It’s not a pretty subject, but it is a contradiction that our culture does not want to consider as it rushes to embrace an “anything-goes” ethic of sexual behavior.

(Note: In 2008, the Centers for Disease Control reported that homosexual and bisexual males were abused as children at a rate three times higher than heterosexual males. Other studies have found higher rates of childhood abuse among lesbian and bisexual women.)

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

While another case of religious discrimination rears its bigoted head, liberals with unseeing eyes and venomous tongues mock any suggestion that Christians are facing persecution. Worse still they virulently oppose the types of laws that would protect religious liberty—you know, the liberty guaranteed in our First Amendment.

The latest victim of religious persecution exercised by religious bigots is Dr. Eric Walsh, a physician who in his role as a lay minister in the Seventh Day Adventist church occasionally preaches sermons that affirm Seventh Day Adventist theological positions.

Dr. Walsh was offered and accepted a position as a district health director in Georgia, after which some employees in the Georgia Department of Public Health heard rumors that Dr. Walsh had preached sermons on, among other topics, homosexuality, Islam, and Catholicism. These sermons had created problems for Dr. Walsh in California, including a misguided call from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Walsh’s firing.

After hearing these rumors, officials at the Georgia Department of Public Health watched hours of Dr. Walsh’s sermons on YouTube, immediately following which he was gleefully fired in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.”

This week, the First Liberty Institute (formerly the Liberty Institute) “filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that the state violated Walsh’s rights under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Ironically, this is the state where cowardly, unprincipled Governor Nathan Deal just two weeks ago vetoed a bill that would have offered protection of rights that even the First Amendment seems impotent to protect in the face of homosexual activism in collusion with activist judges, huge corporations, and hypocritical, intolerant entertainers.

In light of Dr. Walsh’s firing, read the feckless words of Deal in defense of his veto:

[Our Founding Fathers] had previously proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that Man’s Creator had endowed all men “with certain unalienable rights,” including “Liberty” which embraces religious liberty. They made it clear that those liberties were given by God and not by man’s government. Therefore, it was unnecessary to enumerate in statute or constitution what those liberties included.

In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections.

The irony is not that people of faith were seeking to buttress the First Amendment from the attacks of those who deem homoeroticism a First Principle. The irony is that Deal spoke these dismissive words shortly after Dr. Walsh had been fired by the state of Georgia because of his religious beliefs.

Why do “progressives” get so much wrong about conservative positions on both religious liberty and anti-discrimination laws?

“Progressives” either misunderstand or intentionally misconstrue the desire of conservatives to exclude the term “sexual orientation” from anti-discrimination laws and policies. “Progressives” allege that opposition to the addition of “sexual orientation” to anti-discrimination laws and policies is motivated by ignorance and hatred of persons who experience homoerotic attraction and place such attraction at the center of their identity.

“Progressives” are wrong.

Conservatives oppose the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in anti-discrimination laws for multiple reasons:

• The specious term “sexual orientation” erroneously conflates homosexuality and heterosexuality, which are, in reality, ontologically distinct. It should be obvious that the term “sexual orientation” is a political contrivance used to provide cover for the inclusion of homoeroticism as a protected category in law in that no one is “discriminated against” because of their heterosexuality. In objective terms, all humans are heterosexual.
• Unlike heterosexuality which is constituted by objective conditions (i.e., anatomical structures and biological processes), homosexuality is constituted solely by subjective sexual feelings and volitional acts that are appropriate objects of moral assessment.
• Homosexuality is wholly distinct from other conditions that are included in anti-discrimination laws, like sex, race, age, and nation of origin.
• Homosexuality—constituted as it is by subjective erotic feelings and volitional sexual acts—is, however, analogous to other conditions similarly constituted, and therefore, its inclusion opens the door for claims that polyamory and paraphilias should be included in anti-discrimination law.
• Once conditions constituted by subjective, fluid, erotic feelings and volitional sexual acts are offered special protections, the religious liberty of people of faith will be compromised.

Only fools and liars deny that religious liberty is eroding through the sullied efforts of homosexuals and their ideological accomplices.

Support IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-family message here in Illinois.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!

Written by Anugrah Kumar

The New York Times is being criticized for having double standard by allowing a full-page ad by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) against the Catholic Church in response to the Hobby Lobby decision, while the newspaper had rejected an “anti-Muslim” ad in 2012.

“Remember when the New York Times rejected an ad aimed at one religion?” asks journalist David Harsanyi of The Federalist on Twitter, with a link to the Think Progress blog post from 2012 that drew attention to how the newspaper “rejected a full-page anti-Islam advertisement submitted by anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.”

But on Thursday, the Times carried an FFRF ad denouncing “all-male, all-Roman Catholic majority” on the Supreme Court for its decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

The Times had responded to the “anti-Muslim” ad submission. And the Media Research Center quotes Geller as describing the newspaper’s response: “Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to inflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in ‘a few months.'”

Matthew Balan, a news analyst at MRC, notes that while the Times is entitled to choose what ads to run, its response simply proves one of Geller’s points that “almost no Catholics are likely to respond violently even to harsh criticism of the Catholic Church – but enough Muslims are likely to respond violently to harsh criticism of Islam (whether the response is against the critic or against others) that the Times itself views such criticism as unsafe.”

There are plenty of peace-loving Muslims, but “unfortunately there are also enough extremist Muslim thugs to affect what the Times is willing to publish,” Balan adds. 

In a statement, Catholic League‘s Bill Donahue on Tuesday cited examples of “the reaction of bigots to the Hobby Lobby case.”

“‘Court’s Catholic Justices Attack Women’s Rights’ is the headline of Margery Eagan’s Boston Herald article (it’s those Catholics again). The American Humanist Association issued a statement with a picture of a rosary next to birth control pills. Cute,” Donahue said.

He also referred to The Huffington Post, in which Ryan Grim noted that “these men [the five judges who voted for religious liberty] are Christians.” He also said, “The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Christian business owners are special.”

Donahue concluded by saying, “Catholics are 25 percent of the population and comprise two-thirds of the high court. Jews are 1.8 percent of the population and comprise one-third of the high court. Note: only the former is a problem.”

This article was originally posted at the Christian Post website.