For the last century, the United States of America has engaged in a great secular experiment: what if we pretended that God was irrelevant? What if we pretended that we could make laws that ignored God? Could the ‘public square’ be a place of free, rational discourse—free from claims about the implications of Christian theism on public life? This pretended neutrality has served to reveal one thing: that the line between secularism and paganism is dangerously thin. I’ll revisit that point later, but let’s first take a brief diversion into the hazy world of Cannabis and Constitutionalism.

The International Church of Cannabis (yes, you read that right) is in the midst of a battle with the city of Denver, Colorado, over what the ‘church’ claims to be its First Amendment rights to religious freedom. The battle began after the ‘church’ was ordered to remove an eleven-foot, bright pink statue that it erected on their property, a street corner in a residential area.

Striking, isn’t it? A religious group dedicated to smoking weed is appealing to the U.S. Constitution on the grounds of the First Amendment, an amendment designed to protect the Christian conscience. Now, without getting into debates about originalism versus living Constitutionalism, what does this tells us about the state of our nation? More than anything else, it indicates that the Constitution is no longer fit for the American people. Or perhaps it is more appropriate to put it the other way: the American people are no longer fit for the Constitution.

The Constitution has very little to say about God—it only mentions God indirectly, noting that the document was drafted ‘in the year of our Lord, 1787.’ While some might want to read this as a latent atheism in the Founders (or at least an etiolated deism), there is another way to explain the apparent lack of God. As John Adams famously said, “the Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people, and is wholly inadequate for any other.” That is to say, the Constitution presupposes widespread belief in God and the accompanying Christian social behaviors that stabilize a society.

Nevertheless, the lack of explicitly Christian language in the Constitution has been exploited as a ‘get out of morality free’ card by progressives for the last 150 years. And that’s just how we find the International Church of Cannabis appealing to their ‘Constitutionally-protected’ religious freedoms. Because our nation—Christians included—has gone along with the belief that the Constitution, and consequently all law, can exist and preserve social order without a Christian foundation, we now find ourselves confronted with open paganism.

Why is this the case? Why does a silent secularism end up manifesting itself as open paganism? Because nature abhors a vacuum. If there is a moral vacuum, something has to fill it. Man is homo adorans, he was created to worship something, so when God is stripped of his public relevance, the public will find other things to worship, like cannabis, or himself, or whatever that thing on the courthouse in New York is.

Secularism is never truly secular. There is always a god of the system. In a liberal democracy such as our own, the god is demos, the people. Just listen to any political pundit invoking Omniscient Polls and Almighty Consensus—such things are imbued with godlike characteristics, and everyone must fall down and worship before demos.

Christians must reclaim the public square, not ceding an inch to secularism. We must not buy into the notion that laws can be value-neutral. Law, morality, and social order have no rational basis other than the Triune God of Scripture.

Written by James A. Davids

Shurtleff v. Boston centers around the use of three flagpoles in front of Boston’s City Hall.  Boston made one of these flagpoles temporarily available for civic groups to fly their chosen flag while they used the adjoining plaza. Over the prior decade, the city had allowed almost 300 organizations to fly their chosen flags, even those of other nations.

But when a group that gives speeches on the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country asked to fly the Christian flag while it used the plaza, Boston said “no.”  Why?  Solely because it was “religious.”

The U.S. Supreme Court recently has reiterated that a governmental entity may not treat a religious organization worse than other organizations simply because it is religious. Boston obviously is violating that principle. The city’s excuse for this discrimination is that if it allows the Christian flag to be flown temporarily in front of city hall, people might think that the city was promoting Christianity. Any objective observer, however, would know that the Christian flag was only one of hundreds of flags that the city had allowed to be displayed temporarily by various groups. When the Portuguese flag was flown for a few hours, no reasonable person would have thought Boston was now pledging allegiance to Portugal; similarly, no reasonable person would have thought Boston was establishing Christianity as the city’s preferred religion.

The main significance of the case is that it provides the Court another opportunity to dispense with the suggestion—one much in favor among some—that the Establishment Clause somehow justifies limiting the free exercise of religion.  In our view, which is shared by the nine other organizations that joined this brief, both Religion Clauses are pro-religion, not hostile to it. Boston’s animosity to the Christian flag will hopefully be taken as an opportunity by the Court to shut the book on this improper reading of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on this case on January 18.

Written by Jorge Gomez

The greatest threat to America is not the COVID-19 virus.

We don’t dismiss the deadliness of a rapidly spreading illness. However, the virus itself isn’t the most pressing threat to the fabric or the foundations of our country.

The most imminent danger to our republic is the overreach of government power, especially during a crisis. Our nation faces a fatal risk when government takes actions that violate our fundamental freedoms, leading us down the road of tyranny, to the erosion of our constitutional system.

When we survey the landscape of stay-at-home orders and restrictions imposed during the last several weeks, we see officials in numerous states abusing their authority to severely cut back freedoms, as they don’t want to let “a good crisis go to waste.”

Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the burdensome policies, bigotry and discrimination directed against America’s houses of worship and religious communities.

Churches and people of faith nationwide have largely shown love for their neighbor, complied with health guidelines, gone the extra mile to adapt their religious services and continued serving communities as their faith teaches. Even still, relentless and outrageous violations of their religious freedom are constantly launched against them.

What does this say about the state of our nation?

One thing is increasingly clear. The attacks on our First Freedom during the health crisis are a warning sign that America is facing a constitutional crisis.

Downgrading America’s First Freedom to Second Class Status

The first indication that the U.S. Constitution is in deep trouble comes from data showing that most Americans think it’s okay to maintain ongoing limitations on religious liberty.

A recent University of Chicago Divinity School / Associated Press poll reported that 42 percent of Americans think in-person religious services should be allowed with restrictions, and 48 percent think they should not be allowed at all.

That’s half of Americans who believe churches should be banned from meeting, even if they follow the same restrictions and all safety protocols as businesses, retail, liquor and other stores which are allowed to be open. That’s pure discrimination.

Let’s ask ourselves a difficult question: Have we elevated commercial activity so high on our list of “essential services” and downgraded religious freedom to second tier, or even further down the list?

Are we at a point now when we’re categorizing this First Freedom as “non-essential?”

This reveals something deeply concerning about our understanding of basic constitutional freedoms.

It’s almost as if religious freedom—including the inalienable right to exercise one’s beliefs by attending church—has become just like any other casual lifestyle choice. By the looks of it, many in positions of authority and a majority of Americans think this right is just a hobby we can push down the list, like going to a baseball game, or to a concert with friends.

There’s a reason why our Founders fought to ensure that religious freedom held a special (and first) place in the U.S. Constitution. They understood that people of faith and churches were essential to the fabric of our society, and therefore it was necessary to restrain government power, so that religious communities could freely live out their faith as well as contribute to the flourishing of our country.

Today, even if many state governors or local officials say otherwise, religious services and religious freedom are still indeed “life-sustaining” and essential. They are a lifeblood for millions in times of national crisis or distress.

It’s worth reminding those officials who relegate religious freedom and the religious community to second tier of a blunt truth: Religious freedom has been essential since the U.S. Constitution was drafted, and today it still is the primary and most essential of our liberties.

Here’s the bottom line: If “We the People” forget, willfully ignore or downgrade religious liberty from being first on the list of freedoms listed in the U.S. Constitution, then it’s a sign we’re in a constitutional crisis.

State Officials Who Think Themselves Above the Supreme Law of the Land

Another clear and present threat to our constitutional system is seen when governors and local officials across several states think they can override or run roughshod over the religious freedoms of Americans.

Consider that in the state of Washington, Gov. Jay Inslee imposed a ban on religious gatherings of any size during the COVID-19 pandemic, even prohibiting two people from meeting together to pray and read scripture and criminalizing all religious gatherings outside of family members.

First Liberty intervened against this attack on religious freedom, seeking a temporary restraining order on behalf of our client, Joshua Freed, who wanted to hold a one-on-one Bible study in his home while adhering to CDC guidelines. Thanks to our involvement, Gov. Inslee backed down and Mr. Freed can have a one-on-one Bible study, and the Governor will not enforce the rules against home Bible studies on a one-on-one basis.

In Kentucky, First Liberty had to fight on behalf of churches prevented by Gov. Andy Beshear’s executive order from holding CDC-compliant religious services, a policy that even threatened them with criminal penalties. In that state, First Liberty won two seminal victories reclaiming the rights of churches to hold both drive-in and safe, in-person services.

Or take a look at the fact that in Chicago, Illinois police recently fined several churches for hosting in-person services. The situation in that state was so bad that Gov. J.B. Pritzker at one point announced he would demand places of worship keep their doors closed until a vaccine is developed (whenever that is!), despite their “over-compliance” with health regulations.

Over the course of the pandemic, there’s been no shortage of government leaders abusing their power and trampling on the U.S. Constitution by singling out and discriminating against people of faith and churches.

The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect religious institutions, so that no governor, state or local official arbitrarily singles out religious activities for restrictions that do not apply to other areas of life. But as we see from the examples above (as well as many more not mentioned here), some in positions of authority don’t really grasp the U.S. Constitution’s protection of religious freedom.

Terrible mismanagement of religious liberty at the state and local level is alarming because it poses a threat to our constitutional system, indeed to the political health of our republic.

Think of it this way. We have a constitutional crisis when governors or municipal leaders put themselves above the Supreme Law of the Land (U.S. Constitution)—like when they make policies that directly violate the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.

There’s a big lesson to learn here: The health crisis has brought to the forefront the reality of a constitutional crisis, a crisis caused by an impending threat of government interfering with our God-given liberties.

Right now, First Liberty is fighting for and reclaiming the First Amendment freedoms of religious communities nationwide. Protecting religious liberty is essential in this critical time, and it’s the first step in making sure we preserve America’s precious and unique constitutional system.

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.

As you may have heard by now, during yesterday’s White House press conference, President Donald J. Trump officially designated churches as “essential places that provide essential services.” President Trump’s remarks came the same day that Fox News reported that U.S. Department of Justice is intervening “in an Illinois case that has the potential to invalidate the state’s stay-at-home order implemented by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker.”

Shortly after Trump’s statement, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a new document titled “Interim Guidance for Communities of Faith” with detailed recommendations for religious believers and institutions.

“Some governors have deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential but have left out churches and houses of worship. It is not right,” Trump said. “I’m correcting this injustice and calling house of worship essential.”

Watch his brief announcement followed by a Q & A session, which is moderated by Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany:

“The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important essential places of faith to open right now,” Trump said. “For this weekend. If they don’t do it, I will override the governors. In America, we need more prayer, not less.”

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

While we continue to press forward, it is beneficial to pause and look back.  There is much we can learn and apply to life today from the victories and failures of the past.

In his address at a past IFI Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet, author, speaker, and radio host, Eric Metaxas, recounts William Wilberforce’s victory in changing how England viewed slavery. He also describes Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s failure to awaken the German church to the truth of Hitler’s evil intentions.

Five years later, Metaxas’ message of hope and encouragement is as timely and needed as ever, and his questions: “Are you giving God everything you have?” and “Are you longing for heaven?” are still deserving of our thoughtful contemplation.

If you were privileged to hear Eric Metaxas speak in 2014, you will enjoy revisiting this heartfelt and humorous address. If you haven’t heard his presentation, you will definitely want to view the video and share it with family and friends!

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

-and, please-

In June, 2016, when candidate Trump promised a large gathering of evangelical Christian leaders that he was committed to defending our liberties, I was skeptical. Was he just trying to get our votes? Did he really care about our freedoms? Was he truly concerned that our rights were being eroded?

For more than two years, he has answered those questions emphatically. Yes, he is committed to defending our liberties. Yes, he really does care about freedoms. And yes, he is truly concerned that our rights are being eroded.

Now, the president has gone one step further, standing up for religious freedom worldwide.

As he said in an important UN gathering,

“Today, with one clear voice, the United States of America calls upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution. Stop the crimes against people of faith. Release prisoners of conscience. Repeal laws restricting freedom of religion and belief. Protect the vulnerable, the defenseless, and the oppressed.”

For whatever reason, this has become something very important to Trump, and as one who works with persecuted believers in different parts of the world, I can affirm that this is highly significant.

It is also historic. As widely reported online, “Donald Trump has become the first US President to ever host a meeting at the United Nations on religious freedom.”

Donald Trump, indeed.

But this time, he didn’t only draw attention to persecuted Christians, although he did mention that “11 Christians a day [are killed] for following the teaching of Christ.” (To my knowledge, this is an easily verifiable, if not very conservative, number).

Trump also spoke of Muslims and Jews who were killed for their faith:

“In 2016, an 85-year-old Catholic priest was viciously killed while celebrating mass in Normandy, France. In the past year, the United States endured horrifying anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish Americans at synagogues in Pennsylvania and California. In March, Muslims praying with their families were sadistically murdered in New Zealand. On Easter Sunday this year, terrorists bombed Christian churches in Sri Lanka, killing hundreds of faithful worshippers. Who would believe this is even possible?”

Why this deep concern from the president?

It’s clear that Trump has gained a deep respect for evangelical Christians in recent years. And he seems genuinely troubled that our rights have come under attack here in America. How much more, then, would he be concerned when he learns that thousands of Christians worldwide are being slaughtered for their faith every year?

At the same time, his daughter Ivanka is a convert to Judaism, and his son-in-law Jared, along with their children (his grandchildren) are Jewish. And I believe he was truly horrified at the two synagogue shootings where Jews were mowed down in cold blood, right here in America.

And, as much as he is (wrongly) painted as an enemy of all Muslims, he must also have been troubled at the slaughter of Muslims in a mosque in New Zealand.

In that light, it’s no surprise that he is leading the way in the call for religious freedom worldwide.

Let him use his bully pulpit to call out religious oppression. Let him use the power of his office (and the force of his personality) to rebuke tyrannical governments.

But this is where the rubber will meet the road.

Two of the chief offenders today are China and India. Is the President willing to rebuke these governments directly? Is he willing to confront China’s Xi and India’s Modi?

[On Tuesday], September 24, Trump suggested that Modi be referred to as “the father of India” because of his success in uniting the nation.

And while Trump is engaged in trade wars with Xi, he has not as aggressively confronted China’s massive crackdown on religious believers in China, be they Muslim, Christian, or other.

It is true that, after North Korea, the next eight countries where it is most dangerous to be a Christian today are all Muslim. But India is now number 10 on that list, earning a ranking of “extreme persecution” from Open Doors World Watch List 2019.

Consequently, “For the first time since the start of the World Watch List, India has entered the top 10. Additionally, China jumped 16 spots, from 43 to 27.” And based on inside information I have received from China, it will soon be climbing high on that list.

And, when we remember that these are two massive countries, totally nearly 2.5 billion people between them, the implications of these religious crackdowns are massive.

A headline two days announced, “Mosque demolitions across China raise fears over escalating persecution of Uighur Muslims.”

As for India, headlines proclaimed in June, “Incidents of persecution of Indian Christians on the rise.” Yes, “Christian activists say uptick follows landslide victory of country’s Hindu party in national election.”

Yet there are many who believe that Trump has the power to tell Modi to put a stop to this, and he will do it. And perhaps, through economic and other means, Trump can pressure China to change as well.

Let’s hope and pray that this is so. If anyone has the courage to stand up to these powerful leaders, I believe it is Donald Trump.

And when it comes to fighting against religious oppression worldwide, but friend and foe of the president should wish him Godspeed in this battle.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.com.

A few weeks ago, I shared the findings of an extensive national survey conducted by the Barna Group covering religious freedom, religious monuments and displays.

They have passed along the internals of another large national poll looking at attitudes toward sexual orientation, gender identity and religious freedom.

These results are timely given the U.S. Supreme Court’s move this week to scold the Oregon Court of Appeals for imposing a $135,000 fine on Aaron and Melissa Klein, a Christian couple who owned a bakery and did not want to participate in a homosexual wedding.

The Kleins lost their life savings and were forced to shut down their business because of the conflict over their religious beliefs. They were also the victims of vandalism, threats, and public harassment.

The U.S. Supreme Court is asking the state to review their actions in light of a ruling involving a similar situation in Colorado where the nation’s highest court found that baker Jack Phillips’s 1^st Amendment rights were violated by the Colorado Equal Rights Commission.

While people’s views on homosexuality and gender are clearly in a fluid state, U.S. adults overall are against radical changes being made to accommodate LGBTQ demands and expectations.  Most adults do not want the government punishing people of faith, especially Christians, for following their beliefs, and most do not want the government to impose standards of belief or behavior simply to appease LGBTQ desires.  They want the government to remain neutral in its dealings with religion.

Here are a few of the findings from this March 2019 survey:

• The highest response to any question or statement, with 84% agreement, was “Each law must respect every citizen’s freedoms, no matter who they are.”

• Three out of four adults (77%) agreed that the government should remain neutral when it comes to religion, it should not be in the business of deciding whose faith is or is not acceptable because such decisions amount to discrimination against people of faith.

• Seven out of ten (72%) of adults agree that the government punishing individuals for living out their deeply-held religious beliefs is a form of discrimination.

• Two out of three adults (65%) disagreed that the government should have the right to ban personal, gender specific pronouns such as him, her, his, hers, male or female and to punish people using those terms.

• Sixty-four percent (64%) agreed that the vast majority of Christians and other people of faith who believe homosexuality is wrong do not hate gay and lesbian people.

• Six out of ten adults (60%) agreed that laws that punish people who hold traditional views on gender identity and sexual orientation with fines, censorship or jail are unjustly discriminatory.

• Sixty-one percent (61%) of adults agree that there are only two genders – male and female – not a range of genders

• Nearly six out of ten adults (59%) said that state governments should not have the legal authority to force Christian-owned businesses to close if the business chooses to not serve a same-sex wedding or event.

• Roughly the same portion (58%) agreed that there is no reason to single out and punish adoption providers who believe that the best home for a child includes a father and a mother.

• Surprisingly, only half (51%) say that it is not appropriate for a biological male who now identifies as a female to compete in women’s sporting events.

People seem the most agitated by the possibility of the government cracking down on people simply because they hold to traditional views on sexuality, or because they use traditional language to communicate about homosexual issues and gender.

The pollsters note that a large share of people hold opinions on matters that they do not feel strongly about, so under pressure, it is possible that their views could be changed to a different position.  What was once not even an issue for public discussion has become a morass of feelings, facts, and beliefs that many do not know how to resolve.

This article was originally published at AFA of Indiana.

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 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

The New Rules of the Secular Left

The vast high-velocity moral revolution that is reshaping modern cultures at warp speed is leaving almost no aspect of the culture untouched and untransformed. The advocates of same-sex marriage and the more comprehensive goals of the LGBT movement assured the nation that nothing would be fundamentally changed if people of the same gender were allowed to marry one another. We knew that could not be true, and now the entire nation knows.

The latest Ground Zero for the moral revolution is the state of Indiana, where legislators passed a state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Gov. Mike Pence then signed into law. The controversy that followed was a free-for-all of misrepresentation and political posturing. Within days, the governor capitulated to the controversy by calling for a revision of the law — a revision that may well make the RFRA a force for weakening religious liberty in Indiana, rather than for strengthening it.

Business, political, and civic leaders piled on in a mass act of political posturing. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act became law in 1993 in a mass act of bipartisan cooperation. The Act passed unanimously in the U.S. House of Representatives and with 97 affirmative votes in the U.S. Senate. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, celebrating the Act as a much needed protection of religious liberty. Clinton called religious liberty the nation’s “first freedom” and went on to state: “We believe strongly that we can never, we can never be too vigilant in this work.”

But, that was then. Indiana is now.

Hillary Clinton, ready to launch her campaign for President, condemned the law as dangerous and discriminatory — even though the law in its federal form has not led to any such discrimination. Apple CEO Tim Cook took to the pages of The Washington Post to declare that the Indiana law “would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors.” For its part,The Washington Post published an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board condemned a proposed RFRA in the state of Georgia because the law would prevent the state government “from infringing on an individual’s religious beliefs unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so.”

So, The Washington Post believes that a state should be able to infringe on a citizen’s religious liberty without a compelling interest? That is the only conclusion a reader can draw from the editorial.

The piling on continued when the governor of Connecticut, Dannel Mulloy announced that he would even forbid travel to Indiana by state officials, conveniently forgetting to mention that his own state has a similar law, as does the federal government. The NCAA piled on, as did a host of sports figures from across the country. More than one pundit pointed to the irony of the NCAA trying to posture on a question of sexual morality, but the pile-on continued.

Law professor Daniel O. Conkle of Indiana University stated the truth plainly when he said: “The reaction to this law is startling in terms of its breadth–and to my mind–the extent to which the reaction is uninformed by the actual content of the law.” Similarly, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, a proponent of gay marriage, stated: “The hysteria over this law is so unjustified.” He continued: “It’s not about discriminating against gays in general or across the board . . . it’s about not being involved in a ceremony that you believe is inherently religious.”

Nevertheless, the real issue here is not the RFRA in Indiana, or Arkansas, or another state. The real issue is the fact that the secular Left has decided that religious liberty must now be reduced, redefined or relegated to a back seat in the culture.

The evidence for this massive and dangerous shift is mounting.

One key indicator is found in the editorial pages of The New York Times. That influential paper has appointed itself the guardian of civil liberties, and it has championed LGBT causes for decades now. But the paper’s editorial board condemned the Indiana law as “cover for bigotry.” The most chilling statement in the editorial, however, was this:

“The freedom to exercise one’s religion is not under assault in Indiana, or anywhere else in the country. Religious people — including Christians, who continue to make up the majority of Americans — may worship however they wish and say whatever they like.”

There you see religious liberty cut down to freedom of worship. The freedom to worship is most surely part of what religious liberty protects, but religious liberty is not limited to what happens in a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue.

That editorial represents religious liberty redefined before our eyes.

But the clearest evidence of the eagerness of the secular Left to reduce and redefine religious liberty comes in the form of two columns by opinion writer Frank Bruni. The first, published in January, included Bruni’s assurance that he affirmed “the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes, and hearts.” Religious liberty is now redefined so that it has no place outside pews, homes, and hearts. Religious liberty no longer has any public significance.

But Bruni does not really affirm religious liberty, even in churches and in the hiring of ministers. He wrote: “And churches have been allowed to adopt broad, questionable interpretations of a ‘ministerial exception’ laws that allow them to hire and fire clergy as they wish.”

The ability of churches to hire and fire ministers as they wish is “questionable.” Remember that line when you are told that your church is promised “freedom of worship.”

But Bruni’s January column was merely a prelude to what came in the aftermath of the Indiana controversy. Now, the openly-gay columnist demands that Christianity reform its doctrines as well.

He opened his column in the paper’s edition published Easter Sunday with this:

“The drama in Indiana last week and the larger debate over so-called religious freedom laws in other states portray homosexuality and devout Christianity as forces in fierce collision. They’re not — at least not in several prominent denominations, which have come to a new understanding of what the Bible does and doesn’t decree, of what people can and cannot divine in regard to God’s will.”

Bruni issued an open demand that evangelical Christians to get over believing that homosexuality is a sin, or suffer the consequences. His language could not be more chilling:

“So our debate about religious liberty should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

There you have it — a demand that religious liberty be debated (much less respected) only if conservative believers will get with the program and, mark his language, bow to the demands of the modern age.

Christianity and homosexuality “don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni declared.

He reduced religious conviction to a matter of choice:

“But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing. It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.”

So the only religion Bruni respects is one that capitulates to the modern age and is found “rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

That means giving up the inerrancy of Scripture, for one thing. The Bible, according to Bruni, reflects the biases and blind spots of the human authors and their times. When it comes to homosexuality, he insists, we now know better.

This is the anthem of liberal Protestantism, and the so-called mainline Protestant churches have been devoted to this project for the better part of a century now. Bruni applauds the liberal churches for getting with the program and for revising the faith in light of the demands of the modern age — demands that started with the denial of truths such as the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, miracles, the verbal inspiration of Scripture, and other vital doctrines. The liberal churches capitulated on the sexuality issues only after capitulating on a host of central Christian doctrines. Almost nothing is left for them to deny or reformulate.

It is interesting to see how quickly some can get with the program and earn the respect of the secular gatekeepers. Bruni cites David Gushee of Mercer University as an example of one who has seen the light. “Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time,” Bruni quotes Gushee. Bruni then stated that Gushee “openly challenges his faith’s censure of same-sex relationships, to which he no longer subscribes.”

But David Gushee agreed with the church’s historic condemnation of same-sex relationships, even in a major work on Christian ethics he co-authored, until he released a book stating otherwise just months ago. Once a public figure gets with the program, whether that person is David Gushee or Barack Obama, all is quickly forgiven.

Bruni also notes that “Christians have moved far beyond Scripture when it comes to gender roles.” He is right to understand that some Christians have indeed done so, and in so doing they have made it very difficult to stop with redefining the Bible on gender roles. Once that is done, there is every reason to expect that a revisionist reading of sexuality is close behind. Bruni knows this, and celebrates it.

Taken together, Frank Bruni’s two columns represent a full-throttle demand for theological capitulation and a fully developed reduction of religious liberty. In his view, stated now in full public view in the pages ofThe New York Times, the only faiths that deserve religious liberty are those that bow their knees to the ever most costly demands of the modern age.

It is incredibly revealing that the verb he chose was “bowing.” One of the earliest lessons Christians had to learn was that we cannot simultaneously bow the knee to Caesar and to Christ. We must choose one or the other. Frank Bruni, whether he intended to do so or not, helps us to see that truth with new clarity.

Sources:

Frank Bruni, “Your God and My Dignity,” The New York Times, Sunday, January 11, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-religious-liberty-bigotry-and-gays.html

Frank Bruni, “Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana,” The New York Times, Sunday, April 5, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com website.

The mask is off. All pretense has been dropped, and the anti-Christian left’s boundless depth of hatred for individual liberty, our First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is now on full display.

I wrote last week about the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby opinion, a rather tepid acknowledgement of every American’s non-negotiable right to religious free exercise (yes, that includes Christian business owners). I observed, among other things, that “the secularist left’s utter meltdown over having but a small measure of control over others wrested away is highly instructive.”

The meltdown continues. This week brings two new developments: 1) Democrats in Congress have readied a legislative “Hobby Lobby fix” that stands exactly zero chance of passing and would be struck down as unconstitutional even if it did, and 2) The ACLU, AFL-CIO, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal and a hodgepodge of other left-wing extremist groups have withdrawn support for the ironically tagged “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” the crown jewel of homofascism, because the bill’s paper-thin “religious exemption” does not adequately outlaw the practice of Christianity.

The Hobby Lobby ‘fix’

Addressing the high court’s Hobby Lobby decision last Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fumed, “We have so much to do this month, but the one thing we’re going to do during this work period – sooner rather than later – is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men.”

To which Justice Clarence Thomas replied, “Say what, honky?”

“This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous,” continued Reid, “and we’re going to do something about it.”

Well, “do something about it” they shall try. TalkingPointsMemo.com reported on legislation Democrats introduced Thursday that would do away with religious liberty protections altogether:

“The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Mark Udall, D-Colo. According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception [and abortion pills], to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don’t permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.

“The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they’re provided under the law [there is none] is sufficient to respect their religious liberties.”

This reactionary response to the Hobby Lobby ruling is, of course, little more than an election year fundraising scheme for the Democratic National Committee.

Withdrawn support for ENDA

The Washington Post reports, “Several major gay rights groups withdrew support Tuesday for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would bolster gay and transgender rights in the workplace, saying they fear that broad religious exemptions included in the current bill might compel private companies to begin citing objections similar to those that prevailed in a U.S. Supreme Court case last week. …

“But the groups said they can no longer back ENDA as currently written in light of the Supreme Court’s decision last week to strike down a key part of President Obama’s health-care law. The court ruled that family-owned businesses do not have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the owners’ religious beliefs,” concluded the Post.

Gary Glenn is a candidate for the Michigan State House. He’s also president of AFA Michigan. Glenn has been a national leader in defense of religious liberty for well upon two decades. In an email, Glenn wrote, “The extremely limited religious exemptions typically included in discriminatory homosexual and cross-dressing ‘rights’ laws have always been mere window-dressing with no real protection or effect, as witnessed by the ongoing persecution and discrimination under such laws against Christian business owners and community organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, and even the United Way.

“But now that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision threatens to give real teeth to such exemptions, the AFL-CIO’s in-house homosexual activist group has announced it will no longer support discriminatory ‘sexual orientation’ legislation that includes even limited exemptions for religious institutions.

“If this zero tolerance stance spreads to larger groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force [it now has], this could become the sticking point which hamstrings future attempts to pass federal, state, and local homosexual ‘rights’ legislation. These supposed religious exemptions, which the AFL-CIO’s homosexual lobby at least now says it will no longer support, have been a key propaganda point in blunting the opposition of churches and citizens concerned about the obvious threat such laws pose to religious freedom.”

According to its leftist proponents, ENDA would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment intolerance. In truth, however, this legislation effectively would codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.

Though in its current form ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption that might – and I mean might – partially protect some churches and religious organizations (until they’re sued by “gay” activists), this so-called exemption would leave most others, such as Bible bookstores and many Christian schools and para-church organizations, entirely unprotected. It would additionally crush individual business owners’ guaranteed First Amendment rights.

Any “religious exemption” is meaningless. Last year Harry Reid promised homosexual pressure groups that Democrats would remove all protections for Christians and other people of faith on the flipside – after ENDA passed. The homosexual news site Washington Blade reported that homosexual activist Derek Washington of “GetEqual” confirmed Reid’s promise. In a conference call with homosexual activists, Washington admitted that Reid vowed, as goes any religious exemption, “the main thing to do was get the vote taken care of, and then deal with it later. As oftentimes happens, you don’t get something perfect the first time around, you go back and fix it later, so that was basically his take on it.”

According to the Blade, “That account was corroborated by Faiz Shakir, a Reid spokesperson, who said the Democratic leader understands the concerns, but wants to get the bill passed first, then go back and address the exemptions.”

They’ve stopped pretending, folks. This is about criminalizing Christianity. The Hobby Lobby decision has merely made secular liberals forget themselves momentarily. It’s blown back the propagandist curtain to expose their truly sinister aims. Hobby Lobby hasn’t put the “culture war” to rest. It’s taken a gavel to the “progressive” hornets’ nest.

Break out the popcorn and Jujubes. It’s about to get interesting.

Following the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of the religious liberty of the owners of Hobby Lobby, there’s been a lot of handwringing, weeping, and gnashing of teeth over a mythical war on women that warrants a closer look.

Sandra Fluke has a right to eat. Her right to eat is even more fundamental than her right to contracept. She actually must eat.  Does her employer have an ethical or Constitutional obligation to pay directly for her food? And does her employer have an obligation to pay directly for whatever food she chooses to eat—even if that food is expensive and lethal?

This may shock those who believe that it takes a village to raise a child and to subsidize the frisky sexcapades of adult women, but Fluke’s employer has an ethical obligation only to pay her for services rendered. Fluke works; her employer compensates her with a paycheck. With her money, Fluke can make discretionary spending choices. If she can’t afford her first choice of contraceptive methods, she has several options:

• She can cancel her Netflix or HBO subscription in order to pay for her contraceptives.

• She can choose a less expensive contraceptive method (like condoms, which no one gets subsidized).

• She can try to compel her sexual partner to subsidize that for which she is trying to compel her employer to pay.

• Or (horror of horrors), she can forgo sex until such time as she can afford her contraceptive method of choice.

When did the right to access contraception transmogrify into the right to compel others to pay for it? Since when is it a “right” to compel a closely held company (or the government for that matter) to pay for one’s birth control?

The “empowered” Sandra Flukes of the world get the vapors at the mere thought of having to pay  for the costs of their own volitional sexual activity. Apparently, empowerment to them means having the power to compel others to pay for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms out of which they want people to stay. 

Help us be your voice for pro-family values! 

It shouldn’t have taken the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for the Left to admit that homosexual activists and their water-carrying ideological servants have no interest in dialogue, diversity, or tolerance. Jack-booted homosexualists demanded that Eich, co-founder of Mozilla and inventor of JavaScript, be fired for his $1,000 donation to the Prop 8 campaign in California six years ago.

I guess it’s semi-official: American citizens who believe marriage is inherently sexually complementary cannot work in America—not even in their own companies. Remember this the next time someone condescendingly asserts that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” couldn’t possibly affect society at large in any negative way.

I wonder how many of those who drove Brendan Eich out of his job voted for Barack Obama when he publicly opposed the legalization of same-sex “marriage”—you know, before his “evolution.”

For those with short memories, Prop 8 was the ballot initiative that was passed in California that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and then was overturned by a homosexual activist judge whose “reasoning” has been widely criticized.

Now the story Eich story is shifting a bit. Unpleasant homosexual activist and radio personality Michael Signorile asserts that it wasn’t merely that Eich donated to Prop 8 that led to his compulsory resignation. His additional crimes are that 22 years ago Eich supported Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign and then more recently Eich supported (horror of horrors) Ron Paul.

So now corporations large and small will have ideological litmus tests for upper management? “Affirm sodomy and cross-dressing or look for employment elsewhere–preferably on another planet. Oh, and we will need to see your voting record for your entire life as well.”

Some liberals are trying to argue that Eich’s compulsory resignation is merely a business decision resulting from liberal efforts no different from conservative boycotts of Home Depot or Starbucks for their homosexuality-affirming commitments. But there’s a huge difference between boycotting a business for their corporate policies and practices and boycotting a business because of the personal beliefs of an employee. Can liberals not see the difference?

Even homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan condemns the “hounding” of Eich:

The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists….Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me—as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out. 

The Left tries to ennoble their ignoble pursuit of ideological purity on matters related to volitional sexual acts by recasting it as the “new civil rights movement.” Of course, along the way, they never actually make a case for the soundness of the comparison of sexual feelings and acts to skin color. No matter, just keep shouting “equality” and screaming “bigot” at all dissenters, and they win the day. And why do they win? Lots of reasons, none of which involve the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice.

The reasons include the de facto control of the mainstream press, academia, and the arts (including the publishing industry). The other reasons are that many Americans are non-thinkers (read Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death), and many conservatives are cowards.

We should be afraid of a holy God, not the names hurled by those lost in spiritual darkness. And we should be deeply concerned about the loss of freedom that Eich’s “resignation” portends for our children and grandchildren. The fact that so many conservatives continue to assert that all that matters is the economy and radical Islam is testament to conservative ignorance. 

Eich is the pale featherless canary gasping for breath in the coal mine. Unless conservatives stiffen up those Gumby spines and grow some thick man-skin (as I have been doing in my basement laboratory), they’ll find they won’t be able to make a living unless they genuflect to all things homosexual. One small consolation: bootlicking is easier for those without spines.

Come on, people, walk upright.

Speak the truth in love; Expose the fruitless deeds of darkness; Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds; Be anxious for nothing; Remember that the wisdom of this world is folly with God; And share boldly with others the good news that through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life can set them free from the law of sin and death.

Written by Jim Campbell

Disagreements and projections abound in the dialogue about marriage and its redefinition to include same-sex couples. But both sides agree on one issue: redefining marriage significantly jeopardizes religious freedom—the first liberty upon which our nation was founded.

The convergence of several factors creates this unavoidable clash between religious liberty and redefining marriage. First, the vast majority of religious adherents in America believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And because marriage is a core component of religious convictions—indeed, many spiritual traditions treat it as a holy sacrament—people of faith are not likely to change or disregard their views on this central question of conscience.

Second, marriage permeates our law and culture. Thus countless situations will require all citizens, including those who are religious, to affirm or facilitate a fundamentally redefined understanding of marriage.

Third, if the government declares that same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions equally constitute marriages, the law punishes and stigmatizes as “discriminatory” and “irrational” those who publicly espouse a view or conduct themselves in a manner that adheres to the traditional understanding of marriage.

History illustrates the persecution of, and an absence of tolerance for, those who engage in what the law has proclaimed to be irrational discrimination. The freedom of the religious faithful—particularly their freedom to participate in the public square—will thus be sacrificed in a society whose laws embrace a redefined view of marriage.

Legal scholars who favor redefining marriage agree that this religious-liberty conflict is real. Chai R. Feldblum, a law professor at Georgetown University and current EEOC commissioner, believes that advocates for redefining marriage have incorrectly “downplayed the impact of such laws on some people’s religious beliefs.” Renowned religious-liberty professor Doug Laycock and many others agree that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious freedom are inevitable.

This crisis of conscience is not just a matter of legal theory; it is confirmed by real-world examples.

Laws redefining marriage have forced religious organizations to shutter their foster and adoptive ministries because they are unable to place children with same-sex couples. Among other examples, this senseless religious intolerance occurred immediately following the redefinition of marriage in the District of Columbia, even though many other foster and adoption agencies were willing and able to place children with same-sex couples.

After a court redefined marriage in Massachusetts, public schools began teaching young elementary-school students that same-sex marriage is worthy of celebration. Parents who objected for religious reasons asked to excuse their children from these lessons. Yet a court denied parents even this modest religious protection, stating that because “Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.”

Redefined marriage laws have also compelled organizations with deeply held beliefs about marriage either to recognize the same-sex unions of their employees or to stop providing spousal benefits to all employees. In the District of Columbia, a Catholic organization terminated benefits to all of its employees’ spouses just so that it could continue to operate consistently with the dictates of its faith. And in New York, an employee of a Catholic hospital sued her employer demanding that it recognize her same-sex relationship and provide benefits to her partner.

Additionally, laws redefining marriage have also forced public servants with sincere religious convictions about marriage to resign from their positions. In New York, at least two municipal clerks suffered this fate. Similarly, in Saskatchewan, the courts refused to safeguard the conscience rights of marriage commissioners, despite the fact that the province had more than 370 marriage commissioners, most of whom did not object to presiding over a same-sex ceremony.

All of these examples, which are but a few of the many that could be cited, illustrate the bleak prospects for conscience rights and religious tolerance in a culture that embraces genderless marriage.

Sound logic, scholarly consensus, and recent experience all demonstrate that redefining marriage presents a significant threat to religious liberty. We as a society thus face a crossroads and must decide whether to change marriage to satisfy the demands of a few despite sacrificing the religious freedom of many. We should collectively choose to affirm marriage, decline to deviate our course, and continue along the road where religious liberty—a bedrock of our civilization—may flourish.

NOTE: This article was originally publish on Townhall.com, and is the fourth column in a series of columns related to National Marriage Week, Feb. 7-14, 2013. The third column is available HERE.

Multiple media sources are cheerfully reporting that supporters of marriage-redefinition may try to pass their same-sex “marriage” bill during the lame duck session of the General Assembly next month (January 3-9).

State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago), who identifies as homosexual and is the chief sponsor of this anti-family legislation, used the lame duck session in 2010 to ram through a same-sex “civil unions” bill.  It passed by razor-thin margins in part because many proponents of civil unions dishonestly promised lawmakers that the legalization of “civil unions” was all they wanted. 

The ethically-challenged ACLU lobbied heavily for civil unions in 2010, but then in 2012 filed a lawsuit in Cook County on behalf of homosexual activists, complaining that the very civil union law they lobbied to create is unconstitutional.

The liberal activists who pushed for civil unions, including Representative Harris and State Senator David Koehler (D-Peoria), also promised their colleagues that religious liberty and freedom of conscience would not be affected by the passage of “civil unions.”  We have seen how empty those promises were. 

One month after the act was signed into law, homosexual activists went after the Christian owner of a bed and breakfast in Paxton, Illinois.  The owner, Jim Walder, wanted to operate his business for the glory of the Lord.  Not wanting to violate his conscience, Mr. Walder refused to rent his bed and breakfast to a homosexual couple for their civil union ceremony and reception.  (Read more HERE.)

Then in July of 2011, because Catholic Charities would not violate its religious convictions by placing needy children in the homes of homosexual “civil union” partners, the state of Illinois forced Catholic Charities out of adoption and foster care work, thereby affecting the lives of 2,500 innocent children.

The promises of homosexual activists turned out to be utter deceits, as were the religious liberty “guarantees” that were built into the civil union bill, ironically titled “The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.” 

Perhaps thinking Illinoisans can be duped again, Representative Harris has named his marriage-redefinition bill the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Act.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to email your state lawmakers today, urging them to uphold natural marriage and to support a state constitutional amendment by allowing Illinois voters to permanently define this foundational societal institution.  Be assured, your calls and emails are important!  Legislators take very seriously the letters and the numbers of calls they receive — particularly letters that are written by their constituents (as opposed to pre-written form letters.)

We can stop this destructive policy from moving forward, but we must take up the fight again and be willing to make our voices heard.  And this time, we need every conservative in Illinois to make his and her voice heard. We need you to respond to every action alert we send out as the Left moves forward with this and other pernicious legislation.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.