We are pleased to announce that former state legislator Peter Breen has been added to our line-up of speakers for the IFI Special Forum on Religious Liberty.  In addition to being a pro-life hero, Peter leads the Thomas More Society’s Legal Team in service of its Life, Family, and Religious Liberty missions.

Peter recently testified in front of an Illinois House committee to highlight the legal and practical flaws of SB 1909 – a bill designed to punish traditional Christian beliefs about the sanctity of human life at pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) throughout Illinois. SB 1909 allows the Attorney General to investigate any PRC and levy fines up to $50,000 against any PRC that the he/she “believes” is engaging in deceptive practices.

What are false and deceptive practices? Any information the Attorney General believes is deceptive.

Once the Attorney General concludes its formal investigation with your tax dollars and imposes the fine against the PRC, the law would allow the Attorney General to provide this biased information to a person to file a civil suit against the PRC for more monetary damages. You can imagine the damage this will cause.

Planned Parenthood and Attorney General staff testified in favor of this freedom-quashing bill. Their argument contained no complaints (not one) that could be verified — they were all anecdotal accounts they claimed to have witnessed at PRC’s or heard second hand.

In fact, before the hearing, Peter had requested that the Attorney General’s Office provide all complaints it received against PRC’s in the last 10 years. Their response? Zero. Zero complaints against pregnancy care centers have been documented. There is simply no demand from “we the people” for a bill like this. It’s another opportunity for Big Abortion and their allies in the General Assembly to go after and bully people of faith into silence.

Make no mistake, this is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of those who work and/or volunteer at PRCs and want to save preborn babies and minister to women facing unplanned pregnancies. Specifically, this quashes our right to freely exercise our religiously informed views about what abortion does to mother and baby. These beliefs are shared by the vast majority of orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims.

The state has no business regulating speech it doesn’t like. Yet tyrants at the Illinois State Capitol passed SB 1909 and sent it to the Governor for his signature.

The Illinois Senate passed this bill on March 31^st by a vote of 36 to 19.

The Illinois House passed this bill on May 10^th by a vote of 72 to 40.

Click HERE to listen to this week’s IFA podcast in which Monte Larrick interviews Peter Breen.

Join us on Thursday, June 1st! You won’t want to miss hearing from Peter Breen and the plans to challenge this unconstitutional law in court as well as hear from our featured speaker, Ambassador Sam Brownback, who serves as chairman of the National Committee for Religious Freedom. He will report on the international situation in countries like China, Nicaragua, and Nigeria, as well as domestic attempts to eradicate religiously informed conscience rights for medical professionals and those working at pregnancy centers.

We will also be joined by Arielle Del Turco, Family Research Council’s Director of the Center for Religious Liberty and co-author of the organization’s “Hostility Against Churches” report. This new report “indicates that criminal acts against churches have been steadily on the rise for the past several years… The first three months of 2023 saw approximately 3x the number of acts of hostility perpetrated against churches compared to the same timeframe last year.

Religious liberty requires our vigilance because its degradation affects the exercise of every other constitutional right. Literally, our freedom is at stake.

“[T]hat the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction;
that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain
the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy,
which at once destroys all religious liberty.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1779.

As incomprehensible to average Americans as it may seem, three stories about government school students facing disciplinary actions for expressing their Christian faith were featured in Christian media publications over the past few months:

• A six-year-old girl loves Jesus and is concerned about her second grade classmates’ eternities. She shares her newfound faith and it scares her friends. The Des Moines Washington teacher hears concerns from the classmates’ parents, and the little one finds her book bag searched everyday when she enters the schoolyard.

• A 14 year old student in Florida is ridiculed for reading his Bible at school. Not only did classmates reportedly threaten the boy on account of his faith, the high school freshman’s science teacher publicly questioned him and insinuated he was “ignorant” for believing in God and the Bible.

• Last year, yet another Florida high school student was reprimanded by her drama teacher for writing a monologue that referenced her faith in Jesus. The student was told to rewrite the assignment with no reference to religion.

Those are only three instances made public by legal groups representing the students who, their lawyers say, have had their First Amendment rights restricted in government schools.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

While the First Amendment focuses on the U.S. Congress and what they cannot do, it asserts that public policies restricting religious practice or expression at lower levels are not acceptable, either.

The 14-year-old Florida student whose teacher ridiculed him for his faith experienced something no American should ever have to experience, his attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement.

“It’s bad enough that the school has done nothing to stop the bullying from his peers, but have gone as far as joining in on targeting [the student] for simply practicing his faith. This blatant violation of his First Amendment rights is another example of how extreme so many in our education system have become,” Dhillon said, and why her law firm took on his case.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which took on the 14-year-old drama student’s case, described a similar legal scenario.

“This is what ‘wokeness’ has come to—shaming middle school students for expressing their joy in their personal relationship with Jesus Christ because it is considered ‘offensive,’” Christina Compagnone (Stierhoff) of the ACLJ wrote in April 2021. “This was a clear violation of this student’s First Amendment rights and an affront to the religious liberties rooted deeply in the history and culture of the United States.”

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the First Amendment rights of students five decades ago, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). In their ruling favoring the plaintiffs, the highest court in the land wrote:

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school, as well as out of school, are “persons” under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.

And while that’s a strong statement in favor of students’ rights to express their opinions, the question is whether the Court would hold a similar position in 2022, or would the Court decide that maintaining peace in a politically- and religiously-divided setting is the “greater good?”

A growing number of Christian parents are choosing home schools and private Christian schools rather than dealing with antagonistic settings and curriculum offered in state-operated schools.

As more and more cases like those hit Christian media headlines and eventually make it to dominant media, the more intense the issue will become and all the more urgent for American freedom-loving parents to defend future generations from anti-Christian sentiments within government schools.

Illinois Family Institute offers an array of resources on their website at illinoisfamily.org to help parents make crucial decisions about their children’s education.

More than two dozen pro-family organizations signed onto an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court to oppose the Biden Administration’s tyrannical vaccine mandate. The brief, filed on Monday, January 3, 2022, urges the Court to protect religious liberty and oppose this sweeping and unchecked mandate, which requires COVID-19 vaccination in employers with 100 or more employees with little to no regard for the religious liberty interests of American citizens.

In November, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the Biden Administration issued an unilateral vaccine mandate for the aforementioned employers. It did so without the approval of the U.S. Congress and without even allowing for public comment, which is a key part of the rule-making process. Because the mandate circumvented these critical checks, the mandate “undermines rule-of-law values,” the brief argues, “for it puts important policy decisions in the hands of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats…”

More importantly, by placing this power in the hands of an unelected agency, there is a great threat to religious liberty. “In the last 20 years,” says the brief, “[the U.S. Supreme Court] has repeatedly had to step in to protect religious exercise from agency hostility.” The OSHA vaccine mandate is evidence of this continued hostility, as it did not offer any guidance for religious employers or employees. Rather, it creates a potential religious conflict with its mandate, and then “places responsibility for that conflict in the lap of the employer.”

Putting aside the many strong opinions Americans have on the vaccine issue, this sweeping mandate by OSHA both exceeds the agency’s authority, and backhands religious liberty, a bedrock value of our nation.

IFI Family will keep you informed on any action by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue.

Written by Greg Burt

Joe Biden has announced his intent to nominate California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). But Becerra raises deep concerns among religious conservatives fighting to protect their First Amendment free speech and religious liberty rights. They are leary of Becerra because he defended the anti-free speech California law (AB 775), struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, that forced pro-life care centers to promote state-sponsored abortions. They are also alarmed over comments he made before the state Assembly three years ago when he said religious liberty is only for “individuals,” not “institutions.”

California Family Council President Jonathan Keller had this to say about the nomination. “On November 7, Joe Biden claimed victory in the presidential race, saying ‘we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy.’ But his nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services raises grave concerns,” Keller said. “The Secretary of HHS is one of the most important positions in the federal government. But Mr. Becerra is a radical ideologue who rejects First Amendment protections for religious organizations, even earning a rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s hard to see how nominating such an activist is consistent with Mr. Biden’s pledge to be a president for all Americans.”

Becerra made his views on religious liberty known in response to questions from California Assemblyman James Gallagher during his confirmation hearing for California Attorney General on January 10, 2017. Gallagher asked Becerra what he thought about AB 775 and another proposed bill, SB 1146, which would have forced religious universities to change their housing policies and moral behavior codes to avoid punishment.

“On religious protections, the protection for religion is for the individual,” Becerra explained.  “I think it is important to distinguish between protections that you are affording to the individual to exercise his or her religion freely, versus protections you are giving to some institution or entity who is essentially bootstrapping the first amendment protections on behalf of somebody else.”

Gallagher took great exception to Becerra’s statement saying it reflected a “fundamental misunderstanding of the freedom of religion and freedom of association.” Gallagher expressed his objections on the floor of the State Assembly when he explained why he opposed Becerra’s nomination as California’s next Attorney General.

“The freedom of religion and the First Amendment applies just as much to the mosque as it does to the Muslim; it applies just as much to the gurdwara as it does to the Sikh; it applies just as much to the church as it does to the Christian,” Gallagher said.  “It applies just as much to religious non-profits, universities, and places of education. Their religious rights need to be protected just as much.”

Watch the full Gallagher/Becerra exchange here.

This article was originally published at CaliforniaFamily.org.

Written by James M. Odom, Esq.
Senior Policy Analyst, The Illinois Family Institute

Our founders were so sophisticated in their understanding of religion and civil government, that they secured this critical inalienable right given by the Creator to all mankind, as the very first freedom to be protected by the U.S. Government.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
~John Adams, 2^nd President of the U.S.A.

This is why the Illinois Family Institute has joined a friend of the court (“amicus”) brief supporting Catholic Social Services in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 922 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2019), just argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.

The City of Philadelphia wants same sex relationships to be universally accepted, regardless of religious belief, and has therefore prohibited foster children from being placed with a Catholic organization that has been serving children in this way for 223 years, because their religious practice prevents them from placing children with same-sex couples.  Though, incidentally the organization never actually refused a same-sex placement. They refer them elsewhere.

At the federal level, the courts generally enforce the First Amendment by requiring 1) a compelling government interest, and 2) the least restrictive means narrowly tailored to actually achieve that interest before allowing a government to infringe Constitutional rights. This is referred to as the strict scrutiny test.

While it has generally been accepted since the ratification of the 14^th Amendment that the federal government would also defend rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution against the actions of State and local governments, the U.S. Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), reduced this protection by ruling that government actions not targeted specifically against religion, or those called “generally applicable,” do not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

This has enabled state and local governments to tailor laws to limit the free exercise of religion by simply outlawing religious practices that they dislike, for everyone, rather than just those who are acting based upon their faith. This has resulted in numerous states passing “Religious Freedom Restoration” laws to reinstate the previous level of judicial scrutiny.

Such limitation of religious liberty is exactly what happened in Fulton.

This is also why Illinois churches’ federal lawsuits against being forced to close during the COVID-19 pandemic fell on deaf ears in the federal courts.

With the new Court make-up (already relevant, as it had refused to even hear similar cases prior to the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett), there is a possibility of overturning Employment Division, and reinstating a test which would prevent such government prohibitions of exercising religious faith.

What this case is really all about, is giving government the ability to silence the Church, and thereby God, and the Word of God on issues of right and wrong.

The political left desires to replace the current United States Republican form of government with the political philosophies of Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto (referred to more gently as “socialism” by Democrat politicians such as Bernie Sanders).  Removing the Church’s ability to influence the culture’s understanding of right and wrong is a key element needed to effectively marginalize true religion and make it irrelevant.

This is why Democrats appoint activist judges who will re-write the Constitution to suit their contemporary ideology, and why they now desire to continue that practice by adding more judges to the High Court.

Pray with us that our Creator who holds this Court and this Country in His mighty hand, will guide the Court to protect true religion and His Church, the indispensable foundation of this great Nation!

PLEASE PRAY: Pray for God’s mercy on our nation as we await the results of President Trump’s legal challenges to election results. In 2000, it took 37 days to figure out the “hanging chad” dilemma. We must be patient. In the meantime, please pray that any and all corruption would be exposed. 

Please consider a donation to IFI as we stand boldly in the public square.

Dear Pro-Family Friend,

This appeal comes to you during one of the most tumultuous times in our nation’s history. The COVID-19 pandemic, cancel culture, BLM, Antifa, nation-wide riots, and impeachment have dominated the headlines one after the other for months. To say this year has been strange is an understatement.

However true that may be, partisan conflicts, fear, violence, and anger should not distract us from upholding and defending our first freedom, the foundation on which America was built and thrived.

Our forebears ventured to the New World searching for the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families unhindered by a feudal system and unconstrained by a state church run by a monarchy.

Consider that “The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643″ boldly proclaim,

Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace…

Less than 400 years later, America seems to have all but forgotten that original intent. We see modern educators and political leaders twisting or ignoring our foundational principles and documents. In fact, they are intentionally misrepresenting our history.

Of late, even well intended folks might say we’re fighting for “freedom of worship,” not even realizing that perverts the intent of “free exercise of religion.”

Freedom of worship would narrowly define the inalienable right as existing only in a place of worship, whereas “freedom of religion” broadly assigns the right to every moment of a life dictated by faith.

Are we in danger of losing our hard-won freedoms and God-given rights?

Daily we see what happens to a society untethered from its biblical precepts and moorings, and the consequences are heartbreaking. The murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer and the subsequent organized riots that gave way to vandalism, looting, and arson highlight the fact that we have forgotten God as a culture.

Then consider the fact that Illinois has had four new abortion mills established since taxpayer-funding of abortion was signed into law by Bruce Rauner in September 2017.

October 2018 – Carafem in Skokie
January 2019 – Planned Parenthood in Flossmoor
October 2019 – Planned Parenthood in Fairview Heights
May 2020 – Planned Parenthood in Waukegan

The increase in abortion facilities is just one cultural indicator that tells the wretched tale. The “trans”-ideology, sex-trafficking, immoral/godless indoctrination in our government schools, the growing acceptance/use of marijuana (and other drugs), the expansion of gambling, and the widespread consumption of pornography confirm the diagnosis.

We Could Really Use Your Support Right Now…

Our culture is sick, traveling quickly down the slippery slope from post-Christian to out-right godless in a matter of years.

That honest assessment may be discouraging. It certainly is to me. However, we must stop to consider God’s plan. He has placed us in this state at this time in history, and His plan is better than anything we could contrive.

Moreover, God has prepared good works for us to walk in (Eph. 2:10). He wants to use us as He advances His plan. Are we willing and able to be His hands and feet–His ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20)?

Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer, in his book The Church in Babylon, rightly points out,

We have to be a church that is, in some ways, repulsive to the world because of our authentic holiness and yet very attractive to the world because of our love and care.

The world still needs to hear the gospel truth. Our friends, family, and neighbors in Illinois still need to be pointed to the author of all truth and reminded of God’s commands, precepts, and standards.

At the Illinois Family Institute, we are trying to accomplish just that by working hard to “boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.” Wickedness abounds, and it must be exposed (Eph. 5:11) with the light.

But we can only accomplish this if you partner with us! We need the tools and resources to uphold truth and defend freedom in powerful and effective ways. Your investment today in our work enables us to focus on the tasks at hand.

Day in and day out we work to expose wickedness and pray with all our might to equip Christians to counter a culture which has forgotten God and His precepts. We work to uphold the sanctity of life. We work to strengthen and uphold biblical marriage, sexuality, and the natural family. We work to stop any and all who would erode our First Amendment and our God-given right to freedom of religion.

We do all this for you, but more important, we can only do it WITH you!

With your support, we will keep pressing the attack. We will not waver.

As Paul wrote to the Galatians:

And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. (Gal. 6:9)

With you as our co-laborers, we will not grow weary, and we will continue to battle! We need YOU to help us during this strange year when donations are down. Can you help? No gift is too small!

Please donate online or call (708) 781-9328.

Sincerely,

David E. Smith
Executive Director

P.S. Illinois Family Institute staff and board members have the courage to boldly stand in the public square proclaiming truth and exposing wickedness. We hope and pray you will stand with us by giving whatever you are able at this time.

Please send your gift to Illinois Family Institute at the address below, or click HERE to donate online today!

Give by mail:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

You can also donate by phone with your credit card by calling (708) 781-9328 during normal business hours.

The headline to this article is not sensationalistic. It is not click bait. It is truth. Shocking truth. Yes, Instagram has designated videos of live worship on the streets to be in violation of community guidelines, calling the content “harmful.” Let the outrage be felt and heard.

Sean Feucht is a worship leader and songwriter who recently ran for political office in California. He is also a conservative Christian.

On June 23 he tweeted, “This is what we’ve come to in America!

“Instagram is now classifying my WORSHIP videos as ‘harmful or false information’

“Religious Liberty? Freedom of Speech? Big Tech censorship?”

Included in the tweet was a screenshot from Instagram, explaining that the company had removed his video post because it was violation of Community Standards. (Oh, those dread community standards again!)

Specifically, Instagram stated, “Story removed for harmful or false information.”

What on earth does this mean? What can it possibly mean?

Feucht’s tweet got the attention of Missouri’s U.S. Senator Josh Hawley who tweeted, “Cancel culture meets #BigTech. Now @instagram is censoring a Christian worship leader who wants to post videos of praise and worship from places where there has recently been unrest. And that doesn’t meet ‘community standards’? Can’t wait to hear the explanation for this.”

A few years ago, I repeatedly challenged Facebook for censoring some of my posts for alleged violation of community standards, exposing the rank hypocrisy of their decisions.

For example, my factual, fairly-worded post dealing with LGBT issues would be deemed hateful, while the most blasphemous, unimaginably profane, anti-Christian Facebook pages were allowed to operate without restriction. Seriously?

Thankfully, in most cases, with the help of an internal contact, Facebook reinstated my posts (or, restored my status). But other colleagues of mine did not fare so well, having their pages permanently shut down for alleged violation of the dreaded (and oh so ambiguous) community standards.

It seems that “hate” meant one thing for one group and something entirely different for the other. (For a recent video exposé, see here.)

When it comes to YouTube and Google, the battle continues, with large channels like Prager U still experiencing discrimination and unequal treatment. (Where are all the social justice warriors calling for equality? Somehow, they don’t seem to be raising their voices for Prager U.)

In my own experience, after having over 1,000 of my channel’s videos branded unsuitable for advertising in a single stroke (!), YouTube has actually been fair with me, even surprising me at times by what it approves for monetization. At the same time, we know that the other shoe could drop at any moment and suddenly, we could be banned.

It is a big mistake to put our trust in Big Tech.

What happened with Instagram, though, seems even more bizarre and extreme. What on earth were the all-powerful censors thinking?

There are endless videos on Instagram showing disturbing clips from the recent protests and riots, all of them somehow in conformity with community standards. (Right now, over on Twitter, I’m watching a video of the “CHOP” call from Seattle, with specific reference to guillotines. I imagine similar videos can be found on Instagram.)

But when a video is posted showing Christian worship in the midst of these protests, it is removed for alleged “harmful or false information.”

Since there is nothing “false” about the video, then it must be considered “harmful” – hence the headline to this article.

Is this actually what Instagram meant? Could they possibly be claiming that worshiping the Lord on the streets of our divided cities is harmful?

If so, I would encourage every worship leader and every worship team to hit the streets of their own communities, posting similar videos and sharing them as widely as possible, starting on Instagram. (Hey, it’s a great thing to do anyway and just what America needs.)

If Instagram has made a mistake, I hope they own up to it and say, “We totally blew it! There is no excuse.” Otherwise, this means spiritual war.

So, no hatred. No carnal aggression. No fleshly anger. And, of course, of course, of course, no violence.

But lots of prayer. Lots of worship. Lots of preaching. And lots of standing up and being heard. If not now, then when?

Ironically, as if to drill the point home, as I as writing this article, I spotted another tweet from Sen. Hawley from a few hours ago. He wrote, “Now @Twitter is actively censoring Bible verses? Seriously? Why?”

Hawley retweeted another tweet from Sean Feucht, stating, “Not only is big tech blocking worship videos, now they’re blocking Bible verses about PEACE!

“RT if you believe social media needs more peace, more worship, and less censorship of Jesus followers.”

Feucht included a screenshot of tweets from Beni Johnson, then using the handle @prayfor5, which at present is not appearing on Twitter. Her tweets, posting Bible verses, were blocked, with the note, “This Tweet may include sensitive content.”

So, worship is deemed “harmful” and Scripture verses about peace are deemed “sensitive content.” Really?

Let us, then, flood Big Tech with the Word and worship. And let us report and challenge every unjust infraction about the practicing of our faith.

It’s beyond time.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.

Written by Jeremy Dys
Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications, First Liberty

We did not suddenly arrive to the moment where riot police arrest CNN journalists. Though the issues may be complex, recent history suggests that the suppression of civil rights—even for a pandemic—leads inexorably to the abuse of other core freedoms by the government.

Until recently, several states—including Minnesota—declared that it was unlawful to engage in the free exercise of religion in groups of ten or more. When churches dared pursue legal recourse to correct that issue, politicians, pundits and journalists offered criticism.

As one of the attorneys on the receiving end of that criticism on more than one occasion, it left me perplexed. “What’s the big deal?” they might say, “Why can’t churches just worship online?!

The answer should be obvious to any with a passing appreciation for the First Amendment. Our U.S. Constitution guarantees the “free exercise of religion” and the “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” In other words, those with a divine mandate to meet together in worship—regardless of the religion in which they participate—should not require the permission of the state to do so, nor may those rights be treated as lesser rights to visiting retail, restaurants or hardware stores. There is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution.

Because we have (for now) survived the political left’s vision for the lesser “freedom to worship,” we ought to appreciate the free exercise of religion all the more. State officials are not immune from brutal and corrupt behavior. Indeed, the very reason we have a First Amendment is to guard against the natural aggression of power toward that which challenges a state’s authority.

The last three months reveal that too many state and local officials often resist that limitation on their power. The truth serum embedded in the coronavirus appears to be that it reveals the lust for power dormant in many public officials. They believe it within their power to, like a light switch, turn civil rights on or off as they see fit.

If that is the view of some state officials, as we have seen in New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and others, then there can be no surprise whatsoever that other state officials would place journalists—also unequivocally protected by the First Amendment—under arrest.

Of course, this fundamentally disagrees with the central message of our Bill of Rights: The rights articulated therein belong to, and remain with, the people by virtue of their humanity. The limited rights of government—what the people empower government to do—are articulated in the body of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights make plain what the people refused to permit the government to govern. Together, this works to restrain government and ensure freedom.

If you have been inclined to roll your eyes over citizens insisting upon their religious liberty just to sit in a car at a drive-in church service, remember that part of what they seek to prevent is what we now see in the detention of four CNN journalists. Religious people, lately held in contempt by some for simply wishing to exercise their religion at a safe social distance, are actually doing their part to preserve everyone’s freedom.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey should understand this by now. When the threat of litigation by the Roman Catholic Church and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod forced Governor Tim Walz to recognize that churches could safely meet in-person at a bare 25 percent capacity, Mayor Frey declared the idea to be, “a recipe in Minneapolis for a public health disaster.” Frey went on to suggest to CNN that religious people may be less capable of social distancing than shoppers at the Mall of America. They should stay in their virtual worship services, you see, for their own good lest these religious people infect us all.

Four days later and Mayor Frey’s office is handing out free face masks to those engaged in a form of free speech (and worse)—in groups quite larger than ten—while the police take members of the free press into custody.

Being “all in this together” means that, whether we agree or disagree, we each do our part to insist that our civil rights are secured—even in the midst of a pandemic or panic. Without that commitment, the erosion of our civil rights—and our very freedom—is where it leads.

This article was originally published online on Newsweek on June 1, 2020.

I’d like to offer a few words about the separation of church and state—a concept long abused by “progressives.” The religion clauses of the First Amendment were intended to protect religion from the intrusive power of the state, not the reverse. The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” That does not mean religious convictions are prohibited from informing political values and decisions. To expect…

READ MORE

Fifteen years ago, the speech U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr recently delivered to students at the University of Notre Dame would have been widely approved. Today, however, the culture has changed so dramatically that widely accepted moral truths are now controversial.

Barr shared his thoughts on religious liberty with students at the Notre Dame Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture in early October. He outlined how the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution their belief in the importance of religious liberty, “which provides for limited government, while leaving ‘the People’ broadly at liberty to pursue our lives both as individuals and through free associations.”

In the last century, Barr noted, our beliefs helped us to stand up to and defeat Fascism and Communism. But in this century, we face a different challenge. Barr said the Founding Fathers foresaw “our supreme test as a free society” as a challenge not from without, but from within. “The question,” Barr said, “was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.” We have yet to prove we can meet that test.

Barr said, “Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large.” The Founders understood these passions and appetites could take different paths, always leading to tyranny.

Barr reminded his audience that “in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people–a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.”

This raises the question, what happens when a free republic is no longer governed by a religious people?

Barr discussed how religion promotes the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government. He said the Founder’s Judeo-Christian moral system taught them, “Moral precepts start with the two great commandments–to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.”

Barr shared that “Natural law–a real, transcendent moral order which flows from God’s eternal law–the divine wisdom by which the whole of creation is ordered.” Today he said, “Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy.”

He noted that as the Judeo-Christian moral system has fallen into public disfavor and secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism has grown, our society has seen great upheaval.

Barr cited these statistics:

• In 1965, the illegitimacy rate was 8 percent. In 1992, it was 25 percent. Today, it’s over 40 percent. In many large urban areas, it’s around 70 percent.

• Over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses. That’s more than the number who died in the entire Vietnam war.

• There are now record levels of depression, mental illness, and suicides.

He lamented what has happened to our society saying, “What we call ‘values’ today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality, still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.”

Barr decried, “The force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today.” He also noted the irony that the secularism coming against Christianity is becoming a religion unto itself.

We are different from previous societies. Barr said that in the past, the moral chaos we are experiencing now would have caused society to recoil in horror, but today’s high-tech pop culture distracts us from these cultural horrors.

Barr pointed out the absurdity of today’s culture, relying not on morals to treat the underlying cause, but instead on the state. “So, the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion. The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.” The state becomes the father and mother.

Barr criticized, “the way law is being used as a battering ram to break down traditional moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy.” He shared that this has allowed secularists to legalize abortion and euthanasia, and seek to eliminate laws reflecting traditional morality.

He also criticized the Obama administration for refusing to accommodate the free exercise of religion by forcing religious employers to violate their beliefs and provide coverage for abortions and abortifacients.

But he calls public schools “ground zero” for attacks on religious liberty. He sees secularists attacking religious freedom on three fronts:

1.) Public school curricula–often with no opt-out–that are incompatible with traditional religious principles.

2.) Attacks on private religious school that seek to force schools to adhere to secular orthodoxy. He spoke about a lawsuit in Indiana where a teacher is suing a Catholic school because she was fired after revealing she is in a same-sex “marriage.”

3.) Funding for religious schools that is inequitable and unequal. Generally available funds are not available to religious schools. For example, scholarship/savings programs are available only to public school students.

Barr painted a grim picture. “We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor,” he urged. “The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.”

In the face of this hostility, Barr offered this advice to students: “We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith.”

Most importantly–and controversially to some–he concluded with this declaration: “I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort, ready to fight for the most cherished of our liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.”

IFI highly recommends watching his presentation in this YouTube video. His remarks about religious liberty begin at the 12:44 mark:

A Night With Rev. Franklin Graham!
At this year’s annual IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st. You don’t want to miss this special evening!

Learn more HERE.

Written by Michael Foust

The U.S. Supreme Court handed religious liberty advocates a victory Monday when it vacated a lower court’s opinion that had ordered a Christian baker to design a cake for a same-sex wedding.

At issue was a ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals that upheld a state decision forcing Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay a $135,000 penalty after they refused to design a cake celebrating a wedding for a lesbian couple. The Kleins eventually closed their business, known as “Sweet Cakes by Melissa.”

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday issued a one-paragraph order vacating the judgment and sending it back down to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Oregon for further consideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n,” the unsigned order read.

Masterpiece was a 2018 ruling in which the Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker who refused to design a wedding cake for a gay couple. Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated hostility toward religion when it ordered bakery owner Jack Phillips to design the cake.

The Kleins are represented by First Liberty Institute.

“This is a victory for Aaron and Melissa Klein and for religious liberty for all Americans,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty. “The Constitution protects speech, popular or not, from condemnation by the government. The message from the Court is clear, government hostility toward religious Americans will not be tolerated.”

First Liberty had hoped the Supreme Court would hear oral arguments and expand on its Masterpiece decision. The high court, though, punted on that decision.

First Liberty filed suit after the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) ruled the Kleins had violated a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The BOLI also handed down a $135,000 penalty. The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled against the Kleins, and the Oregon Supreme Court declined to take the case.

“The State of Oregon drove Melissa and Aaron Klein out of the custom-cake business and hit them with a $135,000 penalty, because the Kleins could not in good conscience employ their artistic talents to express a message celebrating a same-sex wedding ritual,” First Liberty’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court read.

The Kleins “opened and operated” their baker as an expression of their Christian faith,” the petition said. Further, they believe “God instituted marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

They served all customers “regardless of sexual orientation.” They even had sold a cake to one of the lesbian complainants in the case for her mother’s marriage to a man. But they could not, the petition said, create a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding.

“The Kleins created these cakes, in part, because they wanted to celebrate weddings between one man and one woman,” the petition said. “The Kleins do not believe that other types of interpersonal unions are marriages, and they believe it is sinful to celebrate them as such.”

The state’s order violated the First Amendment, the First Liberty petition argued.

“Unless this Court enforces the First Amendment,” the petition said, “similar cases will continue to arise, as creative entrepreneurs are compelled, under the guise of public accommodations statutes, to participate in same-sex marriage rituals that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, or – as the Kleins did – to sacrifice their livelihood.”

The Thomas More Society, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Cato Institute were among the groups that asked the Supreme Court to side with the Kleins. The attorneys general for 11 states also issued a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Kleins. Those states were Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia.

This article originally posted on ChristianHeadlines.com

May I propose a New Year’s resolution for 2019? Let’s determine to speak up and to speak out, to raise our voices with clarity and compassion, to refuse to hold back regardless of cost or consequence. Will you join me?

To those of you who are already doing this, I encourage you to continue to stand strong.

To those who are not, now is most certainly the time. What are you waiting for?

One of the most important principles taught by Jesus was that if we try to save our lives, we lose them. But if we lose our lives for Him – for the gospel – we find them.

To apply this concept to our contemporary situation, if we try to avoid controversy and conflict so as to preserve our presence on social media platforms, we lose our souls in the process. We become compromisers, fearers of man rather than fearers of God. We are no longer guided by conviction; we are guided by convenience. We survive but we do not thrive.

If we speak what is right and do what is right and live what is right, we might lose a lot in the process, but we will find our souls. We become alive!

We can learn a lesson here from Wang Yi, pastor of Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu, Sichuan, China. He was addressing the sinful policies of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is fashioning himself to be the new Mao and is actively persecuting Christians and other minorities.

In a sermon dated September 9, 2018, Pastor Yi said, “President Xi Jinping does not repent he will perish!”

Yes, he said, “The government he is leading has sinned greatly against God, for it is persecution the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and if he does not repent, he will perish!”

But won’t Pastor Yi suffer consequences for preaching such a message? No doubt. In fact, he was subsequently arrested and is currently imprisoned. Yet he still preached with boldness and conviction.

“When we are not being persecuted,” he said, “we spread the gospel. And when persecution comes, we continue spreading the gospel. If we are talking about a President, we declare he is a sinner. And if we are talking about a general secretary, we still declare that he is a sinner. We believe that we have the responsibility to tell Xi Jinping that he is a sinner.”

What a contrast with today’s “gospel of nice,” a PC-compliant, made-for-America message if ever there was one. Whatever you do, don’t offend! Better to skirt the truth. Better to mislead. Just be sure to smile and be nice!

Of course, we should speak the truth in love. With broken hearts. With compassion.

Being mean is no more Christian than being weak.

But if ever there was time to crucify our cowardice, it is now. If ever there was a time to speak up and to speak out, regardless of cost or consequence, it is now. If we don’t, day by day, our freedoms will be taken from us, one at a time, until we find ourselves confined to a tiny, silent corner. This is how those words of Jesus’ apply.

Back in March, 2018, despite not being a fan of Infowars myself, I wrote an article titled, “Why YouTube’s Conflict with Infowars Should Concern Us All.”

I closed the article with this poem, inspired, of course, by the famous World War II poem of Martin Niemoller:

First they came for Infowars, and I did not speak out—because I found them offensive.

Then they came for Geller and Spencer, and I did not speak out­—because I found them obnoxious.

Then they came for Prager U, and I did not speak out—because I found them opinionated.

Then they came for a host of others, and I did not speak out—because I have my own life to live.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I followed this up with an article on August 6, 2018, “Conservative Speech Be Banned!” This added further documentation and closed with the same poem.

Since then, many other conservative and Christian outlets have been affected (see this shocking list for 2018 compiled by Allum Bokhari). And most recently, Rev. Franklin Graham, arguably the best-known, most-prominent evangelical voice in America, was banned from posting on Facebook for 24 hours because of an innocuous post dating back to 2016.

Facebook quickly apologized and said he was banned in error, but the fact that this could happen at all is another sobering wake-up call.

In 2016, I drew attention to a ridiculous attempt at Princeton University to ban the “m” word (man!) from its campus. No more “man hours” or “manpower” or “layman.” Different, non-sexist terminology must be employed, such as “person hours” (for “man hours”) or “personnel” (for “manpower”) or “non-specialist” (for “layman”).

You might say, “But who cares about what happens on a university campus. That’s already an extreme PC-environment.”

Of course, we should care about what happens on our campuses, since that’s where the next generation is being educated.

But these things are not just happening on college campuses. The UK Telegraph reported on December 27, 2018, that “The European Parliament is attempting to stamp out the use of words such as ‘mankind’ and ‘manpower’ and have them replaced with more gender neutral terms such as ‘humanity’ and ‘staff”.”

Yes, the European Parliament is trying to enforce this hyper-PC speech control.

And, on a related note, let’s not forget that Canada passed a law in 2017 against “misgendering” people, while a similar law had already been passed (with stiff fines) in New York City.

So what will we do? Will we continue to retreat in order to avoid conflict, thereby muting our own voices? Or will we speak the truth in love – as compassionate as we are bold, as Christlike as we are firm, as wise as we are unwavering?

If not now, then when? If not you and me, then who?

Let’s make this our resolution in 2019: “I will not hold back for fear of consequences. I will speak up and speak out as the occasion demands. I will love my neighbor by speaking the truth.”

Are you in?

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

While students and teachers every year hold a Day of Silence in solidarity with the LGBTQ agenda; that agenda is silencing licensed counselors as well as Christians who use social media, and it threatens pastors.

Many pro-family conservatives ask, “Isn’t there any good news to report?” Yes, there is. Some examples are the growing national economy, record low unemployment numbers for minorities, foreign policy changes from the G.W. Bush and Obama years, and, lately, even some positive decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court.

June is traditionally a big month for announcing decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), and this year is no exception. Below are a few of the cases decided and a few still pending.

It can take a lot of work to search out short case summaries put into non-legal language, but the New York Times and the SCOTUS Blog are useful resources. The SCOTUS Blog has a helpful page titled “Plain English / Cases Made Simple” — “This is our archive of posts in Plain English,” the page explains. In addition, each case page includes a list of links to analysis posted at their website.

For those interested in statistics, the SCOTUS Blog also has a page that includes sporting event-like stats for the current term on “dispositions by sitting, majority opinions authored by sitting, pace of grants, pace of decisions, the circuit scorecard and justice agreement.”

(The text beneath the bolded subject lines are from the New York Times, and the case names link to their SCOTUS Blog page.)

Several of the cases below were included in a Times article “The Supreme Court’s Biggest Decisions in 2018.” The article opened with this:

“The nation’s highest court, now at full strength with the appointment of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch last year, faces a far-reaching list of cases that renew its central role in American life.”

This first case, of course, has been well covered by the conservative press. It has also generated a debate on whether the ruling was too narrow or not. You can find arguments on both sides here, here and here.

Gay Rights and Religion

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The court ruled 7-2 in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The court said the baker had been mistreated by a state civil rights commission based on remarks of one of its members indicating hostility to religion.

The Alliance Defending Freedom provides a good write-up on the Masterpiece case background here.

In the next two cases, addressing partisan gerrymandering, the court didn’t rule on the question in either case. In one, no harm was shown, in the other, the court ruled that those bringing the case didn’t have standing. Next term, however, the court will hear a case from North Carolina where it may well decide on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering.

For more on the court’s action in these two cases, read “The Supremes put off deciding whether politics violates the Constitution” by the Heritage Foundation’s Hans A. von Spakovsky.

Partisan Gerrymandering (2 cases)

Gill v. Whitford

The court sent back the challenge to Wisconsin’s legislative map to the lower courts.

Benisek v. Lamone

The court ruled in an unsigned opinion against Republican voters who had challenged the congressional map drawn by Democratic lawmakers in Maryland.

In the next case, involving voting rights, the above-linked Times article examines an Ohio program that removed “voters from its list of registered voters if they don’t respond to a notification after four years… Critics said federal law prevents states from removing people from voter registration rolls for not voting.

Voting Rights

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

The court upheld Ohio’s aggressive program to purge its voting rolls.

The next case was obviously not viewed as positive by many social conservatives:

Sports Betting

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

The court struck down a federal law that effectively banned commercial sports betting in most states, clearing the way for legal wagering.

SCOTUS Blog noted that the holding of the next case, involving immigration, per federal law does “not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention”:

Immigration

Jennings v. Rodriguez

The court ruled that immigrants held in detention facilities have no rights under a federal law to periodic hearings to decide whether they may be released on bail.

Among the cases still pending is Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington — here is the summary from the SCOTUS Blog page:

Issues: (1) Whether the creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding ceremony is artistic expression, and, if so, whether compelling their creation violates the free speech clause; and (2) whether the compelled creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding and attendance of that wedding against one’s religious beliefs violates the free exercise clause.

Here are a few other cases where the decisions have not yet been announced:

Travel Ban

Trump v. Hawaii

The court will decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to restrict travel from several mostly Muslim countries.

Digital Privacy

Carpenter v. United States

The court will decide whether the government needs a warrant to obtain information from cellphone companies showing their customers’ locations.

Labor Unions

Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

The court will decide whether states may require government workers who choose not to join unions to pay fees for collective bargaining.

Pregnancy Centers and Abortion

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

The court will decide whether California may require “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide information about abortion.

Internet Sales Taxes

South Dakota v. Wayfair

The court will decide whether states can require internet retailers to collect sales taxes in states where they have no physical presence.

If what you’ve read so far doesn’t strike you as all that positive, you can be happy you don’t live in Canada. Dr. Michael Brown details what their high court did this week:

Canada’s Supreme Court Rules Against Trinity Western and the Bible

In a ruling that is sure to send shock waves through the nation, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Trinity Western University’s (TWU) Law School. In effect, what the court declared is that universities must choose between biblical standards and accreditation. Put another way, the court ruled that Christianity and higher education are incompatible. I am not exaggerating in the least.

Here’s a brief summary of the case for those who are not familiar with it. Trinity Western is a Christian university that requires its students and faculty to live by basic Christian standards. This means that to be a student or faculty member in good standing, you can’t commit fornication or adultery, nor can you engage in homosexual relationships . . .

And if it could happen in Canada, it could happen in America.

Honestly, I don’t know where TWU goes from here. And I don’t know how the believers in Canada will respond.

But I can say this to my friends and colleagues and fellow-educators and communicators here in America: We either use our liberties or lose them. We either stand fast and stand tall and stand strong, or we cower in a corner. We either do what’s right today, or we apologize to our children tomorrow.

It’s time to push back.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide soon on two closely watched cases that could have a major impact on life and the freedom of conscience in America. Justices will rule on a California law that requires pro-life pregnancy care centers to post notices about the availability of taxpayer funded abortions. And the High Court will be ruling on baker Jack Phillips, the Colorado man who refused, based on his faith, to paint a cake for a same-sex wedding. We need to pray for the US supreme court.