Have you noticed that religious liberty is increasingly under attack in the United States? This seems to be especially true for conservative Christians who want to freely exercise their right to live in accordance with the dictates of their faith.

There are good reasons why the first freedom outlined in the Bill of Rights is the “free exercise” of religion. This God-given right is foundational. All of our other civil liberties spring from this precious gift. If our government fails to protect our First Freedom, all other freedoms are at risk as well. Protecting and defending the First Amendment is critically important because to fight for religious freedom is to guarantee the future of all other rights.

President John Adams once said, “A constitution of government once changed from freedom can never be restored.” It is our duty not only to safeguard religious liberty today but also to equip the next generation to defend it tomorrow.

We would be foolish to let this vital freedom fall to the tyranny of godless socialists who see government as a god. We pray this will never happen. Yet there are good reasons to believe that religious freedom will continue to be attacked by those hostile to the things God. And if they have their way, this God-given civil right will erode or even be dismantled over the next several years.

Astonishingly, Illinois is currently recognized as the second-best state in the nation with a religious liberty score of 81 percent from the First Liberty Institute. The fact that we passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1998 is significant as it protects the right of people and business owners from infringements upon their freedom of religion.

However, the future of this protection stands uncertain in light of laws that added the term “sexual orientation” to the list of protected characteristics like race, color, religion, sex, and marital status. Since 2005, RFRA has been in conflict with the Illinois Civil Rights Act, which defines “sexual orientation” as including “gender-related identity.” So, now Illinois law treats two conditions defined by volitional behavior as equivalent to behaviorally neutral characteristics like race or biological sex.

Illinois is one of five states to safeguard the conscience rights of health-care providers, individuals, or institutions that refuse to provide health-care services that violate their conscience, and Illinois prohibits any imposition of liability for such refusal.

Illinois also provides exemptions from childhood immunization requirements; exemptions for employers from having to provide contraceptives in insurance policies; and exemptions for marriage and wedding participation for religious entities and clergy.

Finally, we have tremendous school choice liberty in Illinois. As a result, many Christians are wisely exiting government schools and instead choosing home education, micro schools, private Christian schools, and co-ops.

American was founded on the understanding that conscience and religious conviction come before the demands of the state. Elected officials and government bureaucrats should never be allowed to encroach on religious free exercise.

Defending religious freedom will require constant vigilance and a loud persistent voice on the parts of liberty-loving citizens. 

Woke censors are looking for ways to expand government and diminish “we the people.” They are emboldened by this last election, and they will not be persuaded to stand down. Their goal remains the same: to push the “free exercise” of religion out of the public square.

Last Friday, by a vote of 218 to 211, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a radical pro-abortion bill that would essentially codify Roe v. Wade. The so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021” (H.R. 3755) would create an absolute right to abortion in federal law, superseding all state laws. The vote fell along party lines, with only one Democrat—U.S. Representatives Henry Cuellar (D-TX)—voting against the bill.

The dangers of this extreme pro-abortion bill cannot be overstated. Contrary to its name, this bill endangers women in innumerable ways. It removes countless state restrictions and limits on abortion, allowing for abortion up to the point of birth so long as one “health care provider” determines that the “continuation of pregnancy would pose a risk” to the mother’s life or “health.” The definition of “health care provider” in the bill is extremely broad and includes certified nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

Moreover, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Doe v. Bolton, a companion case to Roe, “health” in the context of abortion is extremely broad and can include physical, emotional, psychological, and familial conditions, including the woman’s age.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to ask them to oppose H.R. 3755 should it come up for a vote.

Co-sponsors of H.R. 3755 from Illinois include: U.S. Representatives Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), Sean Casten (D-Wheaton), Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Bill Foster (D-Joliet), Chuy Garcia (D-Chicago), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Schaumburg), Marie Newman (D-Chicago), Brad Schneider (D-Lincolshire), Lauren Underwood (D-Crystal Lake), Mike Quigley (D-Oak Park) and Cheri Bustos (D-Moline).

Background

The Women’s Health Protection Act would strike down state level pro-life protections and prevent state legislatures from taking action regarding abortion. Such an example is Illinois’ Parental Notice of Abortion law.  The bill also targets funding for abortions by removing pro-life protections such as the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal taxpayer dollars from supporting abortion, and the Weldon Amendment, which prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to discriminate on the basis of a health care entity’s refusal to provide, pay for, or refer women for abortion.

Thankfully, as the National Review reported, the bill is unlikely to receive the necessary votes to pass the U.S. Senate. The Senate is currently made up of 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents, and 60 votes are required to end a filibuster. Even some “pro-choice” Republican senators have expressed hesitation about the bill, such as U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who commented that “parts of the bill are too ‘extreme’ for her,” and that “the bill would ‘severely weaken’ conscience rights by denying protections afforded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

We think it’s important to make sure that not only our two U.S. Senators know what we think about this legislation, though they be pro-choice, but we also want to put on notice the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell.

Moreover, IFI urges you to pray for all of our federal lawmakers and then speak out to condemn the wickedness of abortion and those sponsoring the so-called “Woman’s Health Protection Act.”

The Newsweek article by Natasha Chart and Rabbi Yaakov Menken begins with these words: “It would be hard to accuse an Orthodox Jewish rabbi and an agnostic feminist leader of walking in lockstep.” All the more would this be true if you added Catholics to the mix, then threw in some evangelicals. What cause could bring such disparate people together, all united as one?

Religious Rights and Women’s Rights at Stake

As Chart and Menken wrote, “We agree entirely that the Equality Act is a fatally flawed, and even hateful, piece of legislation.” Or, as expressed by the chairmen of five U.S. bishops’ committees, the Equality Act will “discriminate against people of faith” — meaning, of Christian faith or other faiths.

As summed up by evangelical leader Mat Staver, “HR 5 is a bill that pushes the LGBT agenda on all people and targets Christianity in every area of life — including the church. There will be an increase of instances where Christians and others are being punished unless they violate their beliefs in order to comply with such a law. And that is just the beginning of unconstitutional chaos in America.”

In short, not only would religious beliefs be trampled in the name of “equality,” but simple human rights — most specifically, women’s rights — would be trampled as well. (As Chart and Menken wrote, “Women, check your ‘privilege.’”)

That’s why many people of faith and non-faith are uniting together against the so-called Equality Act.

Just consider what it would mandate across the nation, with no possibility of religious exemptions.

Here are some potential scenarios.

What Might Soon be Illegal “Discrimination”? Plenty.

An out and proud gay schoolteacher wants to teach at an Orthodox Jewish day school. Under the Equality Act, the school could not refuse him a job because his out and proud lifestyle violated Jewish law. That would be discrimination. As for Orthodox Jewish synagogues, if challenged, they would not be allowed to have separate seating for men and women at public events. Discrimination again!

What if a biological male who identifies as a female, yet still likes to sport a 5-o’clock shadow, wants to work at a Christian preschool, reading stories to the children? The school could not say, “We’re sorry, but we’re not hiring you. That would be confusing to the children.” Under the Equality Act, that would now be discrimination.

Here are a few more scenarios to consider.

You are a professional counselor, and an 18-year-old girl struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions comes to you for help. She had been raped when she was 12 and since then, has found men repulsive. Yet she always wanted to be married and have children and she’s interested in getting to the root of her unwanted same-sex attractions. Under the Equality Act, counseling her would be illegal.

You run a women’s shelter for abused women and have always refused to house biological males who identify as transgender women. You have limited facilities, and there’s no way your clients, already traumatized, should be forced to share showers and bathrooms and bedrooms with biological males. Under the Equality Act, you would be forced to accept transgender “women.”

You are the principal of a public school with an excellent girls’ track team, and your top female athletes win college scholarships on a regular basis. Under the Equality Act, you would be forced to allow boys who identify as girls to compete with the girls, thereby robbing them of both victories and scholarships, not to mention personal dignity. (One website pointed out that, “In 2018, 275 high school boys ran the 400 meter faster than the lifetime best of Olympic Team USA member and world-record-holding sprinter Allyson Felix, while in 2017 thousands of men ran the 400 meter faster than any of the world’s three fastest women.”)

Your church building is used to host weddings on a regular basis. Under the Equality Act, you will not be allowed to say no to same-sex couples, even though this violates historic tenets of your faith.

Traditional Religious Practices: “As Unacceptable as was Jim Crow”

That’s why Mat Staver is almost shouting out this warning about the bill (emphasis his):

It even criminalizes those who share their own story of finding freedom in Christ from homosexuality in a book or speaking engagement. This bill literally sets the stage for banning the Bible, which offers the power to free those wanting to turn away from homosexual conduct.

And there is NO RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION to this bill!

Similarly, Chart and Menken warn, “Incredibly, the Equality Act specifically strips away protection of religious practice guaranteed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.” (Their emphasis.)

In short, “The Equality Act thus deems a religiously motivated refusal to participate in a same-sex marriage to be no different than a KKK member’s refusal to cater a multiethnic couple’s nuptials. Traditional religious practices, according to the Equality Act, are as unacceptable as was Jim Crow.”

And that is why people from a wide range of backgrounds are standing together against this ill-conceived bill. (I haven’t even mentioned the abortion-related aspects of the bill, among other important issues. See this relevant article from 2019.)

We Can All Stand Together on This. Here’s How

The U.S. House has passed the bill and it is now pending over at the U.S. Senate. Contact your senators at once, urging them to vote no. It’s one thing to stand against the mistreatment of those who identify as LGBTQ (or anything else). It’s another thing to turn the world upside down, throw out common sense and logic, and trash the religious liberties of the majority of the nation in the name of equality.

As expressed by the Catholic bishops, “Human dignity is central to what Catholics believe because every person is made in the image of God and should be treated accordingly, with respect and compassion. This commitment is reflected in the church’s charitable service to all people, without regard to race, religion or any other characteristic.”

Consequently, “It means we need to honor every person’s right to gainful employment free of unjust discrimination or harassment, and to the basic goods that they need to live and thrive. It also means that people of differing beliefs should be respected. In this, we wholeheartedly support nondiscrimination principles to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected.”

And that is precisely why we need our elected officials to vote against the Equality Act as it is currently written. We can all stand together on this.

Take ACTION:  The measure is pending a vote in the U.S. Senate where the outcome remains uncertain. Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

Read more:

U.S. House Passes “In-Equality” Act

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

While a number of cases have reached the U.S. Supreme Court challenging government pandemic restrictions that limit churches’ and members free exercise of religion, Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker presents direct legal conflict between jurisdictions (traditionally the primary basis for Supreme Court hearing) and raises crucial additional questions that need resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court, to re-protect and strengthen our first and most important liberty.

For these reasons, IFI has joined an Amicus Brief in support of Elim Romanian.

Until 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court had rightly afforded the highest level of protection to our first freedom, the free exercise of religion.  In order for actions of government to restrict free exercise of religion, the U.S. Supreme Court applied a standard called strict scrutiny, under which the government had to prove: 1) a compelling state interest, and 2) that any restriction was narrowly tailored to actually accomplish that interest.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.  ~George Washington.

In addition to other law, such as tax exemption, and housing allowance for “ministers of the gospel”, the Church’s freedom to gather and worship is protected no less than four times in the First Amendment alone, forbidding government from: establishment of religion, and prohibition of free exercise, speech and assembly.

However, in its decision in Employment Division v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Constitution meant something different than it had for over a century, and reduced the standard to “facially neutral and generally applied,” which demoted free exercise of religion to the same level as any other government restriction on freedom.

In response, Congress and 21 states including Illinois (but not California, Nevada or New York, the subjects of the cases related to Elim) passed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts to restore the strict scrutiny standard.  In the following 30 years, these laws have been challenged and weakened, and the Church in 29 other states has gone without this important extra protection.

Several Justices; a potential majority, have recently signaled the desire to correct this error. Elim is the best current vehicle for the Court to restore this most important freedom.

Earlier in the pandemic, a number of challenges to government restriction on free exercise rights were presented in multiple federal circuits, and largely rejected (e.g., Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, Nevada v. Sisolak).  Unwilling to intervene the U.S. Supreme Court denied appeals, even in an earlier version of Elim v. Pritzker (which has been renewed in this case).

“…this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School…Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.”  ~Justice Antonin Scalia, Dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges

The make-up of the High Court has changed for the better since Justice Scalia’s assertion that there was “not a single evangelical Christian,” (including himself), and even since this recent unwillingness to defend the Church’s Constitutional liberty amidst often onerous COVID restrictions.  To God’s glory, President Donald J. Trump was able to make 3 apparently sound appointments, including one protestant (Gorsuch, Episcopal – replacing Scalia) and possibly even an evangelical Catholic, in Justice Amy Barrett.

Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed course in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo and Southbay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, from owing “significant deference to politically accountable officials,” to now even Chief Justice John Roberts (for a 6-3 majority in Southbay) conceding that such “deference, though broad, has its limits.”

This change creates a conflict between rulings and federal jurisdictions, which is one of the primary reasons for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a hearing (the request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case is called a “Writ of Certiorari”).

The amicus meaning “friend,” (of the court) brief IFI has joined, encourages a ruling on several additional key issues, including:

• Religious liberty should be applied to the community, or the Church corporately, not just to individuals. This element of religious exercise has greatly eroded to the extent that the Court has been unwilling to even define “religion.”
• Churches must have the same exceptions as “essential” services.
• Exceptions to restrictions, even with a compelling interest (i.e., reducing COVID spread), must be no worse for religious practice and organizations than for comparable “secular” ones. (Really, such exceptions should be even greater for First Amendment protected classes. One might say that the U.S. Constitution has pre-determined them to be “essential.”)
• Limits on religious practices and institutions should require the least restrictive means possible, and that means should be rationally calculated to actually achieve the compelling state interest. This is a request to return completely to the strict scrutiny test.

In the more recent COVID cases, the majority signaled a potential return to the historic strict scrutiny standard (maximum Constitutional protection) for free exercise of religion, requiring that New York and California prove their regulations, which obviously target religion for differential treatment, are narrowly tailored to achieving a compelling government interest (reducing COVID spread).

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
but when a wicked man rules, the people groan. ~Proverbs 29:2

While the 6-3 majority coalition in Southbay is very fragmented, with five different opinions on the outcome (4 separate concurrences from the majority: Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and one dissent by the usual liberal justices: Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer), it appears that 5 to 6 Justices may favor a return to the strict scrutiny standard. 

In this case, these new Justices have already established a desperately needed check upon the ultra-liberal extremist control in the executive and legislative branches.  Also encouraging is the Chief Justice’s affirmation of his loyalty to the Constitutional text in refusal to preside over a proceeding to remove a former president from his former office.

Nonetheless, all but two of the members of this same Court have also shown a willingness to punt the Constitution in the face of pressure in the Texas v. Pennsylvania election challenge.

The Governor, using Illinois taxpayer dollars (i.e., the Attorney General’s office – they should be defending the people) to defend his restriction of their rights, has stalled this case at every turn by:

• delaying response until the last possible deadline (i.e., at 10:00 p.m. on the night before the Supreme Court was to rule on Elim Pentecostal Church’s emergency appeal to open for Easter)
• not responding to Elim’s petition for Certiorari, until the Court ordered him to file a response
• re-using arguments of mootness already rejected by the Court in Roman Catholic Diocese (the Governor changed his Executive Order at the last moment and then responded that Elim was no longer being harmed).

There will no doubt be numerous other attacks, both philosophical and political, every step of the way, against this Court, with a majority who has expressed a philosophy of solid textual interpretation of the Constitution, compatible with this Nation’s historic religious heritage.

This is major progress, but there is yet a long way to go for a Court which has for the past 48 (out of 245) years enshrined a right to murder children before they are born.

We must, must, must constantly uphold them in prayer.

Pray every day that:

• God will change the hearts of those Justices who have been unwilling to protect and defend the broad freedom of religion clearly given in the First Amendment,
• He will influence changes of bad legal reasoning,
• He will give great courage to stand to those on the Court who already agree,
• Elim will become the ultimate Religious Freedom Restoration Act, correcting previous wrong denial of freedom by the Court, and
• Such a reversal will lead to other reversals of bad law, such as Roe v. Wade.

Please consider supporting the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Written by Kelle Berry

Recently, an activist group known as the Secular Democrats of America (SDA) sent a document to the president and the administration with a directive “to take back the mantle of religious freedom and pluralism.”

On the surface, the title—Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Patriotic Pluralism in the White House—makes the SDA’s mission sound appealing. The document calls to:

“…Oppose discrimination against atheists, agnostics, humanists, seekers, religious and nonreligious persons and to champion the value of freedom of thought and conscience…”

This even makes it sound harmonious with First Liberty’s own mission of protecting religious freedom for all Americans. After all, the First Amendment grants everyone the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, convictions and to act according to their conscience without government censorship, threat, or coercion.

However, scratching beneath the surface, one sees that the SDA’s demands are much more dangerous. Inside the document, one finds a detailed “blueprint” redefining religious freedom in a way that would be unrecognizable to America’s Founders.

Building a Higher Wall of Separation?

Invoking America’s third president, the SDA implores a return to a “Jeffersonian approach to governance.” In other words, the SDA is petitioning to fortify a higher “wall of separation” between church and state.

Many high school civics students are undoubtedly familiar with those words from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. But what may not be known is that Jefferson wrote them to reassure the church that the First Amendment ensured the government would not interfere in their religious activities. At no time did Jefferson believe that religion and government could not mix.

Indeed, one need look no further than Jefferson’s attendance at church services held inside the U.S. Capitol itself as evidence of his approval of strong church-state relations.

Jefferson and a vast majority of our nation’s Founders understood that faith is not only permissible in the public square, but also beneficial. Houses of worship and religious organizations all faiths care for the sick, feed the hungry, and shelter the homeless. And the benefits don’t stop with charity. A recent study reports that religion contributes $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy.

In stark contrast to the Founders’ constitutional intent, the SDA commands employees “to separate their personal religious beliefs from their work.” Sadly, some government officials have completely bought into this unconstitutional view.

First Liberty continues to protect Coach Joe Kennedy’s right as a high school football coach to pray alone after games. If the SDA gets its way, Coach Kennedy and millions of other Americans who are government employees will suffer irreparable harm to their First Amendment rights—putting them in the untenable position of choosing between their faith and their job.

Government employees are not the only ones who will suffer under the SDA’s aggressive plan.

Private religious organizations who have historically been able to work with the government are also threatened. In the case of Fulton v. City of Pennsylvania, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Catholic adoption agencies that have, for decades, worked with the government to provide loving homes for adoptive children have been told to sacrifice their religious identity in order to continue their work.

Unsurprisingly, the SDA opposes the right of the adoption agencies: “[n]o institution, religious or secular, is entitled to access taxpayer funding.” If the SDA gets its way, it won’t just be orphans in need of loving homes who suffer. Millions of Americans who benefit from the benevolent partnership between church and state will also suffer.

Legislation Already Under Way

It’s tempting to quickly dismiss the SDA’s demands. However, people of faith must realize that some in positions of power who sympathize with the SDA’s message are already acting to implement its agenda.

For example, look at the effort on Capitol Hill to pass the so-called Equality Act, which if signed into law, would effectively overturn the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which, as its name suggests, was intended to restore religious freedom.

The Equality Act may sound appealing in name, but the only equality it seeks to achieve is to eradicate any religious beliefs that do not conform to the government’s preferred orthodoxy. It’s a law that would squash dissent and differing viewpoints from the public sphere. The sad irony is that the Equality Act is actually antithetical to the SDA’s stated principles and its championing of pluralism.

At a time when the SDA and many other activist groups are pushing to recreate the U.S. Constitution, First Liberty remains vigilant and undeterred in our mission to protect and defend religious freedom consistent with the vision of America’s Founders. And regardless of who resides in the White House or controls the U.S. Congress, we will continue being the best hope for victory for Americans of all faiths.

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.

Written by Dr. John A. Sparks

Among recent actions by the U.S. Supreme Court, a four-sentence order may set the stage for the court to eventually address the collision between free speech and religious freedom on one hand and gay rights on the other. The order voided a judgment by the state of Oregon that had imposed a $135,000 fine on Portland-area bakery owners—the Kleins—for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Oregon maintained that its anti-discrimination law condemned such a rebuff even when the bakery owners’ religious convictions run counter to participating in a same-sex wedding.

Besides vacating the fine, the court sent the case back to the Oregon Court of Appeals to be reconsidered in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. Masterpiece involved a similar situation in Colorado for Christian baker, Jack Phillips, when he refused, on religious grounds, to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple’s marriage. In Masterpiece, Colorado’s case against Phillips had relied on language in an earlier case, Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which said that religious liberty claims could not be used as a defense against “generally applicable” laws that were “neutrally” enforced. However, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Colorado proceedings against Phillips were far from “neutral.” In fact, they were rife with religious hostility toward him. Besides that, the court found that Colorado had selectively enforced its anti-discrimination laws, making them less than “generally applicable.”  Now the court is ordering the Oregon court to review the Klein case looking for the same examples of unfairness it had discovered in Masterpiece.

Klein is the second case of this type that the U.S. Supreme Court has sent back to the courts below for reconsideration in light of the Masterpiece decision. Earlier, the Washington Supreme Court was ordered to make such a review in a case involving a florist, Barronelle Stutzman, and her business, Arlene Flowers. Stutzman had refused to provide wedding flowers for a gay couple’s ceremony. Just recently (June 6, 2019), the Washington court found that proceedings were not conducted with “religious animus.” The Washington court closed that review by repeating its conclusions that neither free speech, free exercise, nor freedom of expression were infringed upon by the anti-discrimination law in question.

It seems likely that the Oregon court will make similar findings of the absence of religious hostility. Once the Oregon court has spoken on the matter in the way it is expected to rule, the questions of religiously hostile proceedings and selective enforcement will have been disposed of. That will leave the central constitutional questions of free speech and free exercise of religion for the U.S. Supreme Court to face which it effectively avoided in Masterpiece. The arguments on those issues made by the Kleins and Mrs. Stutzman in their existing court filings will be brought up again.

What are the Constitutional claims supporting the positions of faith-guided commercial providers who are asked to set aside their religious beliefs by customers who ask them to offer services contrary to their convictions?

The first basis for relief from the reach of the anti-discrimination laws is the claim that such laws violate the freedom of speech of the providers. At first blush, it may seem a stretch to regard baking a cake or arranging flowers as “speech.” However, federal Constitutional cases have long recognized that protecting speech is not limited to “the spoken or written word.” Engaging in conduct that expresses a point of view or idea is speech, and that expressive conduct is protected by the First Amendment.

In addition, and important for these cases, citizens cannot be forced to deliver a message provided by the government or another person. The oldest and best-known case recognizing this idea—called the “compelled speech doctrine”—is W. Va. State Board of Education v. Barnett. There the court said that public school children could not be required to salute the American flag or say the pledge of allegiance when to do so was against their religion’s teaching. The case, though it involved religious convictions, is usually viewed as a free speech case in which the court forbade the government from making citizens express a message contrary to their beliefs. Both wedding providers—the Kleins and Stutzman—maintain that Washington and Oregon laws are, in effect, requiring them to use their artistic expression to further a conjugal union against which they have serious religious reservations, or face a legal penalty. When their only other choice is to abandon the means to make a livelihood that they have chosen, the burden placed upon them is unconstitutional.

The second constitutional claim asserted by the two wedding providers is that their religious liberty under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment has been denied to them by the anti-discrimination laws. Employment Division v. Smith, as already mentioned above, makes that claim more difficult. The Smith defendants consumed an illegal drug—peyote—as part of a Native American religious ceremony. They were dismissed from their jobs with a drug rehabilitation organization and lost a claim for unemployment compensation. They argued that their free exercise of religion was being infringed upon by Oregon.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, maintaining that “neutral” and “generally applicable” regulations could not be avoided by religious liberty claims. The result was probably right: religious ceremonies do not give participants the right to use controlled substances. But, unfortunately, the court’s opinion needlessly swept away an almost three-decades-old case which had established a sensible legal formula for addressing those instances in which religious convictions clash with existing legislation. That formula, called the Sherbert test after Sherbert v. Verner (1963), protected religious believers when the court found that a law or regulation “substantially burdened” their “free exercise of religion,” and that the government had no “compelling interest” at stake, or that it overlooked a “less restrictive” way to further its interest. Congress vigorously sought to counter the Smith decision by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which required the restoration of the Sherbert test. However, the RFRA was ruled as only applicable to federal laws and regulations and not to the states and therefore does not help the Kleins and Stutzman.

Given the clear facts of these cases, and the uncertainty that remains for religious providers, it is high time for the court to hear and decide them. For the most part, the reasoning of Smith should be discarded and Sherbert reinstated. The court should not avoid these fundamental questions of free speech and free exercise of religion any longer. Rather, it must courageously set the cases for oral argument and address these key issues head on.

This article was originally published by The Institute for Faith & Freedom.

The U.S. House of Representatives just passed the disastrous and dishonestly titled Equality Act that if passed into law will not merely gut First Amendment protections but effectively ban Christianity and any other religions that teach that homoerotic acts and cross-sex impersonation are immoral.

This proposal (H.R. 5) passed Friday afternoon by a vote of 236 to 173 (with 23 not voting). The Illinois Congressional delegation voted along party lines. Congressman Darrin LaHood (R-Peoria) was absent but has told us that he was a “no” vote.

Here are the 8 traitorous U.S. House Republicans who voted with the Democrats in favor of the faux-equality act: Reps. Susan Brooks (Ind.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) Will Hurd (Texas), John Katko (N.Y.), Tom Reed (N.Y.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) and Greg Walden (Ore.).

They sold their souls and our religious liberty, assembly rights, and speech rights for a mess of pottage in the form of their re-election bids. Either self-serving desire to preserve their position was their motivation, or they have no understanding of either equality or the differences between conditions like race and sex and conditions like homoeroticism and opposite-sex impersonation.

The National Review exposes how radical and dangerous the Equality Act is:

Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia, has been a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage…. Laycock has also been a longtime supporter of enacting a federal gay-rights non-discrimination law, but he doesn’t support the Equality Act, a bill just approved by the House of Representatives that would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it would “crush” conscientious objectors.

“It goes very far to stamp out religious exemptions,” Laycock tells National Review in an email. “It regulates religious non-profits. And then it says that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] does not apply to any claim under the Equality Act. This would be the first time Congress has limited the reach of RFRA. This is not a good-faith attempt to reconcile competing interests. It is an attempt by one side to grab all the disputed territory and to crush the other side….” Laycock says that religious schools would probably be viewed as “public accommodations” under the Equality Act even if they refuse all federal funding.”

If passed and signed into law, the Equality Act would require that federal law recognize disordered subjective feelings and deviant behaviors as protected characteristics. Federal law would absurdly recognize homoeroticism and cross-sex masquerading as conditions that must be treated like race and biological sex, which are objective, 100 percent heritable conditions that are in all cases immutable, and carry no behavioral implications.

Once the law is enjoined to protect two groups based on their subjective, internal sexual feelings and volitional sexual behaviors, we open a Pandora’s Box of evils that will inevitably result in conflicts between the spanking new legal rights of those who embrace sexual deviance as “identity” and 1. the First Amendment rights of those who reject sexual deviance, 2. the moral right of businesses to require restrooms, locker rooms, and showers to correspond to biological sex, 3. the right of businesses to fire or refuse to hire a person who chooses to masquerade as the opposite sex, and 4. the right of public schools to fire or to refuse to hire a person who chooses to impersonate the opposite sex.

Thomas Donnelly–aka “Giselle”

There is nothing intrinsically unjust about treating people differently based on their volitional choices. There is nothing unjust about treating biological women as different from biological men who impersonate women. And it is manifestly just and proper for an organization or business to fire people like Thomas Donnelly (see photo), a defense and national security Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and BDSM aficionado who now masquerades as a woman named “Giselle.”

Just as the legal prohibition of discrimination based on homoerotic feelings and acts conflicts with the legal prohibition of religious discrimination, so will the legal prohibition of discrimination based on feelings about maleness and femaleness and acts related to those feelings set in motion conflicts with prohibitions of religious and sex discrimination. It is morally and intellectually untenable that subjective feelings and volitional acts supersede both biological sex and religion as a protected class.

Pastor and theologian Doug Wilson makes clear the totalizing and totalitarian impulses and goals of LGB and T activists (a schism among whom is growing):

[T]he sexual revolutionaries are not interested in anything shy of total and complete victory.

And that is what the faux-equality act is about: total and complete victory over theologically orthodox Christians, which necessarily means eradicating their freedom to speak freely, assemble/associate, and exercise their religion.

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Professor of Theology at Houston Baptist University, provides a troubling list of effects that will ensue from the passage of the pernicious Equality Act—which speaking in the strident voice of cultural regressives, Dr. Gagnon facetiously calls the “Get the Homophobic and Transphobic Bigots Act.” According to Dr. Gagnon, the faux-equality act will mandate:

1.) Nationwide “LGBTQ” indoctrination in school curricula and in workplaces, where you and your children will regularly learn and relearn that anyone who is not a cheerleader for all things “gay” and “transgender” is a hateful, ignorant, and indecent bigot who has no place in society (note that Christian teachers in public schools will be forced not only to listen to such presentations but also to make them for students).

2.) State social services to take your children away from you if you oppose your child’s “right” to transition to a person of the other sex or enter homosexual sexual relationships.

3.) Affirmative-action hiring of people who identify as “transgender” and “gay” throughout industry and academia.

4.) Speech that embraces the faux gender identity of “transgenders” under penalty of fines and imprisonment.

5.) “Transgender female” (i.e., male) access to female restrooms, showers, locker rooms, dressing rooms, shelters, dormitories, and sports.

6.) Use of all commercial talents (photographers, artists, bakers, wedding planners, printers, etc.), including forced speech (lettering, messages) to promote transgenderism and homosexual intercourse, under pain of fines and imprisonment.

7.) The firing of white-collar employees who express any religious or secular views deemed “hateful” by “LGBTQ” radicals, even if that view is expressed outside the workplace, say (for example) in social media.

8.) Loss of federal financial aid, science grants, and ultimately accreditation for Christian colleges and universities that maintain “discriminatory” policies toward LGBTQ behavior and relationships, whatever short-term, bait-and-switch exemption is offered to get the bill passed.

9.) Doctors and Catholic hospitals to perform “sex-change” operations on children and to treat all “trans” patients not as their real biological sex but as the sex that they pretend to be.

10.) Law enforcement agencies, courts, and medical research studies to categorize “trans-persons” by their pretend sex.

11.) Censorship, with punitive penalties imposed if at all possible, on all speech and publications that make homosexual and transgender persons “feel unsafe” (essentially all speech critical of homosexual intercourse and transgenderism).

Just slapping the word “equality” onto legislation does not transform it magically into something good or make it about equality. The Equality Act—like the ERA—is not about equality. The Equality Act—like the ERA–serves the tyrannical interests of the “LGBTQQAP” community. And both will be used to deny the rights of women and Christians.

You have been amply warned. Now, do something.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators to urge him/her to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.” If you know the name of your local official, you can also call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask the operator to connect you with his/her office to leave a message.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/HR5.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Hoosiers know that our own Mike Pence is one of the best orators in Washington, DC. It was no surprise to hear the positive reviews the Vice President received from his commencement speech at Liberty University on Saturday. If you have not read about this, you can watch his outstanding address HERE.

The Vice President warned the graduates of America’s largest Christian university that if they live out their faith in a Biblically consistent manner, persecution is to be expected. This is a truth every discerning Christian should understand today. As Christ said in John 15:20, “A servant is not greater than his master.  If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.”

Here is one of Pence’s comments:

“Some of the loudest voices for tolerance today have little tolerance for traditional Christian beliefs.  So, as you go about your daily life, just be ready.  Because you’re going to be asked not just to tolerate things that violate your faith; you’re going to be asked to endorse them.  You’re going to be asked to bow down to the idols of the popular culture. . .”

His words are prophetic.   This week, the U.S. House is expected to vote on H.R. 5, the misnamed “Equality Act.”

The American Family Association has warned, “The deceptive “Equality Act” is a religious liberty wrecking ball.”

It would be hard to imagine a more anti-freedom bill than this one. This legislation would allow the government to discriminate against people of faith, bypassing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and forcing people to violate their consciences or face the full weight of state punishment.  I have often said that LGBT stands for “Let’s Get Behind Tyranny.”   H.R. 5 is proof of where the sexual anarchy agenda is going.

Here are just a few of the many problems H.R. 5 could cause if enacted:

• H.R. 5 would force Christian schools, ministries and churches to change their employment policies that are aligned with traditional teachings on sex, gender, and human sexuality.

• H.R. 5 would force many faith-based organizations to pay for abortion in their health care plans by creating a right to demand abortion coverage from health care providers.

• H.R. 5 would harm faith-based charities, such as adoption agencies, that believe in natural marriage and strive to place foster or adoptive children with a mother and father.

• H.R. 5 would embolden those in Indiana who have been attempting to destroy our school voucher system by undermining the teachings of Christian schools on sexual behavior that have employment policies consistent with those beliefs.

• H.R. 5 threatens the privacy and safety of women and children by forcing genderless bathrooms and showers upon sporting facilities, parks, rest areas and other public amenities.   

Your US Representative needs to hear from you today.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative to ask him/her to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individuals perceived sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. If you know the name of your local official, you can also call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask the operator to connect you with his/her office to leave a message.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Written by Samuel Smith

A federal court has granted a Christian liberal arts college in Pennsylvania a permanent injunction against the Obama-era abortion pill mandate that required the school to be complicit in providing health care coverage that violated its religious convictions.

On Thursday, Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted permanent relief to Geneva College, a liberal arts school affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.

Conti ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services Obamacare contraception mandate violated the college’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by requiring the school to facilitate coverage of services to which it has religious objections.

“[T]he court finds that Geneva is entitled to declaratory relief that defendants’ enforcement of the mandate … and implementing regulations against Geneva and requiring its compliance with the accommodation procedure with respect to providing, paying for, making accessible, or otherwise facilitating or causing access to coverage or payments through an insurance company or other third party for contraceptive coverage services to which Geneva College has religious objections … violates Geneva’s rights under RFRA,” the court document reads.

The ACLU is lending its full support to the reintroduction of the “Do No Harm Act” to make sure that religious freedom guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) doesn’t allow Christians and others of faith to deny services to homosexuals and transgenders. Passage of the Do No Harm Act, says the ACLU, will “prevent discrimination under the guise of religious liberty.”

But Matt Barber, founder of Barbwire.com and a constitutional attorney, says the ACLU is really fighting to create a license to discriminate against Christians.

“They presume with no real logic or history in law or any constitutional support that – as Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s appointment to the EEOC, once said – When religious liberty comes into conflict with so-called ‘gay rights’, gays win, Christians lose,” Barber says, paraphrasing Feldblum’s original remark.

He adds that nothing can be further from the truth. As he explains, the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion.

“The ACLU wants enumerated civil rights for these new-fangled gay rights, but these are not rights; they are gay wrongs,” Barber tells OneNewsNow. “These are behaviors and temptations that the Founding Fathers called a crime against nature.”

Barber concludes that imagining the Constitution supports “gay rights” is mind-boggling.

The Do No Harm Act to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was reintroduced to Congress on July 13, 2017, by Democratic Congressmen Joe Kennedy (Massachusetts) and Bobby Scott (Virginia).

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

American courts are being told that certain outrageous activities are actually normal, constitutionally protected, Islamic religious behavior.

• In a Michigan court doctors are accused of mutilating young girls, some as young as seven years old, through cutting off parts of their genitals. A defense lawyer claims that this Islamic practice must be allowed, stating “I believe that they are being persecuted because of their religious beliefs and I do not make that allegation lightly.”

• A lawyer for the state of Hawaii claims that President Trump’s attempted travel ban is unconstitutional. Executive Order 13780 includes a request to collect
  

  “…information regarding the number and types of gender-based violence against women, including so-called “honor killings” in the United States by foreign nationals…”

  The lawyer argues that gathering this data discriminates unconstitutionally against Muslims.

Are these lawyers correct? In the name of religious freedom must America accommodate violent Islamic behavior? Should people here be allowed to govern themselves by Islamic law? In considering these questions we will examine:

• What it would mean to have active sharia courts.

• What virtues God requires of government.

• How American courts handle a collision between religion and civil law.

• How to prevent or neutralize Islamic courts.

Islamic law is always biased towards Muslims

A Muslim society wants to be governed by Islamic sensibilities, which are manifested in sharia. The result is a religious government, favoring Islamic believers and discriminating against non-Muslims. According to Wikipedia, sharia is

“…derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the collection of books known as the Hadith.”

Under Sharia, plaintiffs come to a religious elder, called an imam. After hearing their testimony the imam uses the Quran, with other holy books, to craft decisions to be enforced by officials.

Some elders, called mufti, are allowed to declare a fatwa. This is a pronouncement about how Muslims should handle a particular circumstance. A Muslim anywhere, not just in the jurisdiction of that mufti, can decide to obey the fatwa or ignore it. Fatwa examples include:

• Condemn the author  to death. Rushdie wrote a book that enraged Muslim sensibilities. The Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared a fatwa that Rushdie must die. In response to the book and the fatwa, rioters burned bookstores, Rushdie’s associates were attacked, and he himself went into hiding.

• Ban the use of polio vaccines. No, polio vaccines are OK. Both fatwas were issued.

• Forbid viewing movies about Islam.

• Wives must not leave the house except in emergencies.

Sharia is biased towards Muslim concepts of justice, rights, and equality. Americans hear these words but don’t realize how Muslims interpret the concepts. Here are some examples of sharia justice.

• A Muslim man’s testimony in court is always believed more than that of a woman (Quran 2:282, Sahih Bukhari (a Hadith book) 6:301).

• A man can be convicted of rape only if there are multiple male witnesses against him (Quran 24:4). But if a female accuses a man of rape then the female gets punished. Her testimony isn’t valid against the man, but is a confession of her having sex outside of marriage.

• Non-Muslims are barely tolerated in society. They can live only by continual payment of ransom (jizya, Quran 9:29). They must also watch what they say: witness an Indonesian governor, a Christian, convicted of blasphemy for suggesting that Muslims could vote for him.

• A Muslim can’t leave the faith without incurring a death sentence.

• If a man kills a Muslim it isn’t a criminal matter. Rather, the offender must work out a deal with the deceased’s family, perhaps buying them off with blood money (qisas, Quran 2:178). If that doesn’t work the deceased’s family may personally kill that offender.

• If a man kills a non-Muslim deceased’s family has fewer paths to justice than do Muslims (Sahih Bukhari 9:83:50).

According to American courts, Sharia is not actually a legal system. In successful arguments before the United States Tenth Circuit court the plaintiff argued:

Furthermore, plaintiff has presented testimony that “Sharia Law” is not actually “law”, but is religious traditions that provide guidance to plaintiff and other Muslims regarding the exercise of their faith. Plaintiff has presented testimony that the obligations that “Sharia Law” imposes are not legal obligations but are obligations of a personal and private nature dictated by faith. Plaintiff also testified that “Sharia Law” differs depending on the country in which the individual Muslim resides… Based upon this testimony, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown “Sharia Law” lacks a legal character, and, thus, plaintiff’s religious traditions and faith are the only non-legal content subject to the judicial exclusion set forth in the amendment.

Because Sharia isn’t based on legal precedent, you might present a Sharia court the same argument multiple times and get a different decision each time. The court relies on the judgment of its imam, who isn’t required to be consistent.

Because of its pro-Muslim bias, an unprepared American plaintiff coming before a Sharia court ought to be in for quite a shock. But even if the plaintiff appeals the verdict to regular civil courts, a Muslim tendency to “take the law into their own hands” might make any appeal moot.

Freelancing Islamic justice

Regarding justice, existing Muslim societies have a dual personality. On one hand is the usual deference to rulers and established government. On the other hand is an acceptance, even encouragement, of vigilantism. It is fairly easy to find instances of mob action, where people are attacked, and even killed, for defaming Islam. No trial, just the lynch mob.

Encouragement to autonomous action is built into Islam. Here the Quran says:

“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 9:5)

This verse spurs continuing attacks on non-Muslims, including Christians. It is just one verse among a multitude that encourage action independent of judges and courts.

A recent European development is the appearance of Sharia patrols. These gangs roam through neighborhoods, intimidating and assaulting residents into sharia-compliant behavior. There were even attempts to start these in Minneapolis and Dearborn.

Once you recognize this tendency towards independent, often violent, action you’ll better understand why there are so many “lone wolf” attacks, and “you offended Islam” riots, by Muslims around the world.

Honor killing is another aspect of this vigilantism. Somehow, Islamic or family honor is restored if you kill a rebellious child, the daughter who is seeing a non-Muslim, or somebody who insults Islam. Some scholars think that Islamic support for honor killing arises from an Islamic parable about Moses (Quran 18:65-81). Through its lawyer, the state of Hawaii claims that honor killing is part of Islamic religious expression.

Whether or not honor killing is explicitly supported in Islam, it is accepted in Islamic societies. This is evidenced by the lack of Muslim mass outrage, and the absence of condemnation from imams, when such killings occur. Because of sharia’s concept of qisas (killing is a civil, not government, problem) there isn’t anything there that discourages taking revenge through independent action.

This tendency towards freelancing the verdicts of Islamic justice suggests why authorizing sharia courts could be dangerous to American communities.

• In a Philadelphia mosque its leaders detained a man accused of theft. They tried to chop off his hand, a sharia penalty for theft. They were unsuccessful, the man was hospitalized with severe cuts, and one of the mosque leaders was arrested.

Had the mosque leaders succeeded in their punishment the man would certainly have recourse in state courts. He’d also be permanently without his hand, something no legal appeal can fix.

Godly government and American law

God told us what He requires of a righteous society and its government. I touched upon this topic in a previous article. In summary, the rulers must:

• Provide even-handed and truthful justice (Amos 5:12).

• Give judgments that don’t favor either the rich or the poor (Leviticus 19:5).

• Be even-handed in our treatment of the aliens in our midst (Deuteronomy 10:17-19).

This is God’s standard for Christian society, Islamic society, and indeed any society.

American law is deeply rooted in English common law, which grew from the Christianized English society. Judges still look to common law when making decisions. Why, then, worry about Islamic courts if America has a Christian foundation? Because American Christians have, by and large, abandoned the public square. We tell ourselves, and are told by others, to leave our religion in the church building. Without the continual guidance of God’s church, which is a preserving salt to society, its guiding light (Matthew 5: 13-16), we’ve accepted all sorts of nonsense and called it justice.

Rulers are to be a terror to wrongdoers, and God’s servants in avenging wrongdoing (Romans 13:3-4). How will our rulers and judges know what must be avenged unless they understand God’s mind on the matter? And who will tell them if the Christians don’t (Romans 10: 14)? It’s high time we again do our duty to preserve and guide American society.

When religion and civil law collide

Soon a judge must decide if an Islamic practice, or a Sharia court, should be allowed in America. The framework used to make this decision will be the Lemon test. From Wikipedia:

• The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)

• The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)

• The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)

The government’s claim of compelling interest in its law is measured by these three tests. The law is upheld if it passes all three tests; otherwise, the law’s restrictions are deemed unconstitutional.

The claim of government compelling interest has been tested many times. Here are a few important decisions.

• The Mormons are persistently banned from practicing polygamy in the United States. Utah couldn’t become a state until polygamy was officially banned there. Among the many points of the points that were decided is (from Wikipedia):

“The Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it held that the law prohibiting bigamy did not meet that standard. The principle that a person could only be married singly, not plurally, existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.”

• The state of Oregon passed a law insisting that all children must attend public schools. Leaders of Catholic church schools objected and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law. From Wikipedia:

“He stated that children were not “the mere creature[s] of the state” (268 U.S. 510, 535), and that, by its very nature, the traditional American understanding of the term liberty prevented the state from forcing students to accept instruction only from public schools. He stated that this responsibility belonged to the child’s parents or guardians, and that the ability to make such a choice was a “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

• When instituting Obamacare the government insisted that all health plans must include contraceptive coverage. The Little Sisters of the Poor objected to this requirement, citing long-standing Catholic opposition to these products. After many court fights the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in their favor, remanding the case back to a lower court where the Little Sisters could negotiate a plan not having the objectionable requirement.

• A non-Christian religious group sued for the right to use a certain tea, deemed to be a prohibited Schedule 1 drug, in their worship services. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in their favor.

“The Court found that the government was unable to detail the government’s compelling interest in barring religious usage of Hoasca when applying strict scrutiny as the RFRA demands of such regulations.”

The lawyers opposing Islamic practices, such as sharia courts, will need to prove that the government has a compelling interest in banning them.

Preventing or neutralizing Islamic courts

Muslims coming to America bring with them their possessions and their cultures. Those that successfully assimilate learn what part of their cultures must change in their new home. The others try to recreate their cultural practices here. One of those practices might be a sharia court.

The successful establishment of sharia courts, rendering enforceable judgments, amounts to colonization, replacing the existing civil authority with their own. Of all of a government’s compelling interests, keeping its own sovereignty is utmost. What approaches can we take to prevent or neuter sharia courts?

No sponsored, or parallel, sharia courts

Sometimes a sharia court is called an arbitration council, which provides advice voluntarily followed by its participants. However, changing its name doesn’t change its character. A sharia court is an Islamic religious proceeding, and government must have nothing to do with it.

• A government body that works with a sharia court, refers clients to it, or accepts results of its judgments, breaches the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause. It favors one religion over another.

• The sharia court renders its judgments by Islamic standards. A plaintiff acting on the court’s advice will inevitably hurt someone else who expected an action compliant with civil law.

• The sharia court is abetting breaking the law if its “voluntary counseling” causes people, knowingly or not, to use it to evade the civil courts. This “parallel law” court challenges the sovereignty of the existing government. If a sharia court is a conduit for law evasion then its use must be somehow blocked.

If you can’t ban the sharia court, ban its results

Many states have tried banning sharia. However, such bans might not stand up to legal scrutiny. The state of Oklahoma forbade its courts from considering or using sharia. Its ban was overturned by the Tenth Circuit court, largely because it violated the Establishment Clause. That ban mentioned sharia by name, targeting one religion while not affecting any other.

The plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case successfully argued that the ban didn’t define sharia well enough to target it. With that guidance in mind, we should ensure that harm can’t arise from sharia court judgments. If all a sharia court did was provide a chance for Muslims to get together and argue then it would be harmless. Only when its decisions spur criminal action does it become dangerous. If a fear of prosecution deters such actions then the sharia court is neutralized.

Here are approaches that are religion neutral and serve compelling government interest:

• Honor killing: Stripped of its emotional content, this is cold-blooded murder. It’s also premeditated, thanks to the imam’s decision, and the court’s participants can be prosecuted for being co-conspirators. There is no “religious practice” exemption for murder. Aggressive investigation and prosecution can deter honor killings. However, plea deals would merely tell these Muslims that the government is willing to accept a form of blood money (qisas).

• Acid attacks: This is an ambush attack, dousing someone’s face with a caustic substance. This disfigures the victim and demoralizes the community. Europe is subject to a plague of them. These attacks aren’t a religious practice, but grow in number where vigilantism goes unpunished. Because the resulting disfiguring severely alters the victim’s life there must be strong laws that cover these attacks. I pray that smart police street work can detect perpetrators before they can ambush their victims.

• Female genital mutilation (FGM): This act is done on very young girls with the complicity of her parents. Doing this procedure is already a federal crime, but that shouldn’t prevent states or localities from passing their own laws proscribing it. The government has a compelling interest in preventing child abuse. Detecting that the crime has occurred involves cooperation between doctors, hospitals, school officials, and perhaps others in the child’s life. They can look for behaviors and signs that a girl might be suffering from this deed.

• Sharia patrols: These patrols are just a street gang. Time for the police anti-gang squad.

No blasphemy laws

Muslims worldwide have called for a ban on speech critical to Islam. To the Muslim world criticizing Islam is blasphemy (Quran 33:57-61). Some people hope to ban criticism in the United States by framing it as a ban on “hate speech.” Such a ban would restrict religious freedom and free speech, and a law banning Islamic criticism runs afoul of the Establishment Clause.

Finale

The best defense against sharia in America might be aggressive enforcement against evils done in the name of Sharia. Do we have the fortitude and persistence to prevail?

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing an Illinois doctor and two pregnancy care centers filed suit in state court against Gov. Bruce Rauner after he recently signed a bill into law that forces doctors and medical facilities to promote abortion regardless of their ethical or moral views on the practice.

ADF sent a letter to Rauner in May on behalf of numerous pro-life physicians, pregnancy care centers, and pregnancy care center network organizations advising him that the bill, SB 1564, would violate federal law and therefore place federal funding, including Medicaid reimbursements, in jeopardy. ADF also warned legislators about the problems with the bill last year. The lawsuit claims the new law, which is actually an amendment to the existing Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, violates state law and the state constitution.

“No state should attempt to rob women of the right to choose a pro-life doctor by forcing pro-life physicians and entities to make or arrange abortion referrals. What’s even worse is that Illinois did this by amending a law designed specifically to protect freedom of conscience,” said ADF Senior Counsel Matt Bowman. “The governor should have vetoed this bill for many reasons, including its incompatibility with Illinois law and the state constitution, which specifically protects freedom of conscience and free speech.”

The new law forces medical facilities and physicians who conscientiously object to involvement in abortions to adopt policies that provide women who ask for abortions with a list of providers “they reasonably believe may offer” them. Illinois law prohibits government from placing burdens on religious conscience without a compelling interest for doing so. Additionally, the Illinois Constitution protects “liberty of conscience,” saying that “no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions.” It also protects free speech, which includes the right not to be compelled by government to speak a message contrary to one’s own conscience.

“Pro-life health care professionals shouldn’t be forced to hand out lists describing how to contact abortionists, yet that’s what this law mandates that they do,” explained ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “If this profane amendment to Illinois’ conscience protection law remains on the books, doctors and medical staff committed to saving all lives will be forced to promote the killing of some children, women will lose access to doctors who unconditionally value human life, and pregnancy resource centers that offer free help and hope to pregnant women will be forced to refer to abortionists. This is the kind of government coercion that the state constitution, the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the very law that was amended were all designed to prevent.”

Mauck & Baker LLC attorney Noel Sterett, one of more than 3,000 private attorneys allied with ADF, is co-counsel in the case, The Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford v. Rauner, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Winnebago County.

Attorney Noel Sterett, co-counsel in the case and partner at Mauck & Baker, LLC, in Chicago, says, “These crisis pregnancy centers have been doing tremendous work serving their community for years, but now their core mission is being threatened. People disagree on whether abortions end human lives, but I’d hope we can all agree that pregnancy centers dedicated to protecting the unborn should not be forced to recommend abortion to mothers.”

Written by Richard Wiley

Freedom of conscience is at risk, and the attack upon it has officially enveloped the field of medicine.

Remember the 11,588,500 word bill passed by Congress in 2010, accompanied by the hopeful promise of easy-access healthcare? The bill that continues to cause the closure of small businesses and price hikes in the insurance market? That’s right, the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) strikes again. Pointing back to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is now using Obamacare to target the right to liberty of conscience.

Reminiscent of the rainbow colors projected on the White House after Obergefell v. Hodges, the HHS is doing everything it can to solidify its celebration and special treatment for those struggling with their sexuality. Pursuant to a final rule to become effective July 18th entitled “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” every medical practice treating any patient who participates in HHS administered or funded health programs or in the health insurance marketplaces will be required to comply with Obamacare’s new “nondiscrimination protections”.

According to HHS, unlawful “discrimination” based on “sex” is not limited to choosing to operate on a female instead of a male simply because she’s a female and he’s a male; the new definition includes refusing to provide sex-reassignment surgery because you disagree with it as a matter of medical or moral judgment. The rule thus mandates that medical institutions provide sex reassignment surgeries to patients regardless of the religious interests of the institution or physician. Possible penalties for violating the rule include civil suits, fines, and criminal investigations.

It doesn’t stop with transgender conundrums, however; the new rule also includes those requesting abortions to the list of protected classes. Although the HHS declares that the rule (section 1557) does not replace the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act or other provisions pertaining to religion, it fails to articulate any means of seeking relief under religious exemptions and is silent as to which provisions would be lifted and which would be stayed, should any relief be requested. The rule simply states, “[i]nsofar as the application of any requirement under this part would violate applicable Federal statutory protections for religious freedom and conscience, such application shall not be required.” No other mention of religious exemption is provided, leaving further procedural steps in limbo to be determined on a case-by-case basis with no uniform application.

Regulations will typically lay out a section detailing which providers are exempt under which circumstances because not doing so produces nebulous interpretations of the law. The practice is more than a courtesy, and omitting such a provision is a telling action indeed.

In addition to breaking down the freedom of conscience and religion, the rule erodes doctors’ professional judgment regarding which procedures are necessary, effective, and plausible for their patients. It’s another case of micromanagement that will have additional economic and moral ramifications for the medical field.

In the end, it’s clear that the rule is a ruse. While the federal government brandishes the colorful flag of the downtrodden class of sexual revolutionaries in its hand, it tramples on the ashes of truth, proudly proclaiming its fidelity to the cause of the deceived. Ironically and tragically, the very thing that can cause healing, that can provide some long overdue stability to struggling families, is the very thing the government continues to deride: the truth.

This article was originally posted at the FamilyFoundation.org blog.

In what is already a controversial session due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on many cases in the upcoming months that will have wide-reaching effects in American life. Here are three decisions that Christians should know about.

Health Standards: Protecting or Burdening Women?

Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt (formerly v. Cole) 

Pro-lifers across the country will want to pay close attention to this case arising out of Texas. In light of the haunting Kermit Gosnell story in 2013, the Texas state legislature enacted safety measures for abortion clinics. The law would require abortion clinics to adhere to the same standards as outpatient surgical centers and would require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles in case health complications for the mother arise. If enforced, approximately three quarters of Texas abortion clinics now in operation would close.

Abortion advocates say this law violates the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a doctrine which says any law that places a substantial obstacle to abortion is unconstitutional. In contrast, Texas argues that these are commonsense health regulations and that women are not burdened because the remaining abortion facilities are within reasonable driving distances throughout the state.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Texas law saying that it is not the role of the judiciary to consider the extent a state’s health laws have on restricting abortion access. The Supreme Court will now determine whether the Fifth Circuit properly used the “undue burden” standard in making its decision.

Of Nuns and Birth Control

Zubik v. Burwell 

What wins? Freedom of conscience or government interests? In Zubik v. Burwell, religious employers, such as Christian universities and Little Sisters of the Poor, are fighting Obamacare’s HHS mandate which requires them to cover the costs of “all FDA-approved contraceptives,” including abortion-inducing drugs, for their employees.

This may sound similar to last year’s Hobby Lobby case where the Court ruled the government cannot force employers with longstanding religious beliefs to pay for coverage that violates their conscience. To comply with Hobby Lobby, the Obama administration created an exception for religious employers that excludes the objectionable content from their insurance plans.

However, the federal government is still forcing the employers’ insurance companies and other third-party administrators to cover the costs of their employees who seek to obtain abortion pills. This means employers are still actively involved in providing drugs in their healthcare plans that violate their conscience.

The Court will weigh whether Obamacare’s HHS mandate and its “accommodation” violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court’s decision will depend on whether the government can prove that this is the least restrictive way of advancing a compelling public interest.

A Separation between State and Playgrounds

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley

The state of Missouri prevented pre-school and daycare centers from using a government program that provides recycled tires for safer playground surfaces. The reason? The pre-school is run by a church. Missouri claims that allowing the program to serve a church-run daycare will violate the principle of separation of church and state.

The Court will determine whether excluding churches from an otherwise neutral government program constitutes a violation of the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses.

This article was originally posted at Mauck & Baker, LLC.

Written by Ryan T. Anderson and Roger Serverino

On Wednesday night, the Georgia legislature introduced new language to its religious freedom bill and passed the bill in mere hours. Haste makes waste. This new language significantly waters down a religious freedom bill that had real force even though it was, as we pointed out three weeks ago, already lacking in certain respects.

The new version of the bill provides Religious Freedom Restoration Act levels of protection for certain protected persons, but it explicitly says these protections cannot apply in cases of “invidious discrimination.” Of course, no one is in favor of invidious discrimination, but the problem is that in the hands of a liberal judge, everything looks like invidious discrimination even when it is not, such as religious universities or adoption agencies that want their policies to reflect their teachings on marriage. This apes the bad “fix” that gutted the Indiana religious freedom bill.

What this “fix” means in practice is that if a new or existing law creating special legal privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity conflicts with a sincere religious belief, the Georgia religious freedom bill may provide no protection—not even the standard balancing test that is the hallmark of religious freedom restoration acts. So in an area where we most need religious liberty protection, the new Georgia law goes out of its way to disclaim it.

The Georgia bill also provides First Amendment Defense Act-style protections with respect to beliefs about marriage for certain faith-based organizations. But here again, what it gives in one sentence, it takes away in another.

The new version of the bill adopts a very narrow definition of faith-based organizations, covering only churches, religious schools, and “integrated auxiliaries.” Indeed, Georgia’s constrained definition of religious organization mimics the one used by the Obama administration to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to help provide abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plans because they don’t qualify for an exemption as a religious organization. Faith-based organizations come in all shapes and sizes, and there is no reason for Georgia to adopt such a cramped vision of religious organization.

Finally, the new Georgia bill provides no protection for bakers or florists or other similar wedding professionals who cannot help celebrate a same-sex wedding. While it does provide protections for priests and pastors not to have to perform same-sex weddings and for everyone not to attend them, the U.S. Constitution already provides such protections. So the bill doesn’t protect those who most need it, but it protects those who already have it.

It is unfortunate that the Georgia legislature caved to pressure from big business and special interests to water down their weakened bill even further. Other states must be vigilant against such cultural cronyism.

This article was originally posted at TheDailySignal.com