“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant.
It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
~Ronald Reagan

What was President Obama’s immediate and instinctive response to this month’s Islamic terror attacks in Paris? Did he offer prayers for the families of the slaughtered and vow to wipe out the global cancer that is Islamic Jihad? Did he pledge to come alongside France and work with our wounded European ally until every last Islamic State barbarian is wiped from the face of the earth?

No, America’s eunuch-in-chief preened like a petty peacock, mocking and berating the very Americans he’s sworn to protect and serve. He stated – vomiting the word “Christians” with sanctimonious disgust – that there will be no “religious litmus test” on Syrian refugees, while hypocritically employing a religious litmus test of his own that favors Muslims over Christians by a rate of 97 to 3 percent.

Indeed, during his post-Paris rant, this Oval Office dhimmi promised business as usual, doubling down on his failed policy of containment and appeasement, and inexplicably swearing to aid and abet our enemies by rapidly increasing his importation of Shariah-compliant Islamic refugees. As even his top security advisers warn, these refugees are marbled through with Muslim terrorist infiltrators hell-bent on doing to you and your family what they did to the people of France.

Yet the court jester continues to juggle.

To be sure, some of the Paris terrorists posed as Syrian refugees, and ISIS has pledged to do the same thing here. The question is not “if” but “when” more Americans will die as a result of Obama’s Pollyannaish response to the threat of Islam. He is either catastrophically naïve, or something far more sinister. At best, Barack Hussein Obama is weak and dangerously obtuse. At worst, he is an enemy within.

Either way, he must be stopped.

Still, the jihadist genie is, even now, out of the bottle. Nearly 70 Muslims, including refugees, have already been arrested within America’s borders in the last 18 months. In just the past week, over a dozen Syrian refugees have been caught at our borders with fake passports and bad intentions. Understandably, a majority of Americans agree that we must employee a compassionate alternative to Obama’s suicidal plan to import hundreds-of-thousands of unscreenable Syrian refuges.

But what is that “compassionate” alternative?

Well, it’s certainly not the open-borders approach pushed by America’s “progressive” left. While engaging in hollow #RefugeesWelcome hashtag bravado on Facebook and Twitter may provide a fleeting sugar rush of moral superiority, it is not an answer.

Neither is it tethered to reality.

It’s abject foolishness.

No, the compassionate response is the Christian response. We must be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (see Matthew 10:16). It is possible to be at once wise and compassionate. The two are not mutually exclusive. Christ modeled for us the perfect solution to this problem with His parable of the Good Samaritan:

“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have’” (Luke 10:30-35).

There are many important metaphorical parallels here. Note that the Good Samaritan did not take this man into his own home to care for him. He administered first aid and then took him to a separate location, an inn, giving a charitable donation to the innkeeper and instructing him as to the man’s further care.

Americans, especially Christian Americans, are the most charitable people in the world. The answer to the Syrian refugee crisis is to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Rather than taking these Shariah-compliant followers of Muhammad – many of whom, as our own intelligence has established, are either ISIS sympathizers or operatives – into our own home, we must unequivocally demand that oil-rich Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran and others open their own sealed borders to their fellow Muslims in need. They share the same value system and religion, both of which are rooted in Islamic Shariah law – a sociopolitical worldview that is anathema, indeed hostile, to America’s Judeo-Christian values and constitutional-republican form of government.

Undeniably, Saudi Arabia alone has the means to immediately house at least 3 million of these Syrian refugees in its vacant, air conditioned tent city, used only occasionally to accommodate Muslims on their pilgrimage to Mecca. America can also help subsidize, build and facilitate additional refugee camps throughout the Middle East.

Even so, and for our own national security, safety and survival, there is much we can do to help them there, without bringing them here.

And those who are here, we must move there.

The pagan left and the pagan Muslims share a common enemy. He is Christ, Who is Truth. They are both antichrist. The spiritually blind “progressive” West is being played masterfully by the burgeoning Islamic caliphate. What we are witnessing is called “Immigration Jihad,” and Obama is chief among the worldwide Muslim leadership’s dhimmi patsies. They are not only sending a Trojan Horse through our gates, but Obama is helping them to both build it and physically transport it here, with your tax dollars, next door to you and your family.

Yes, we must all have compassion for the innocent women and children suffering under this Islamo-progressive-created humanitarian crisis, but we cannot allow the Islamic State, which represents the purist form of orthodox Islam, to use them as pawns in this war between the civilized world and the demonic savagery that is Muhammadism.

Wise as a serpents, innocent as doves.

Support the work & ministry of Illinois Family Institute!

From Eagle Forum

In the wake of the evil and horrific events in Paris, Congress decided to react to President Obama’s promise to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to America. The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a bill that adds an extra level of certification for refugees from Syria and Iraq. Passed by a vote of 289-107, H.R. 4038, the American SAFE Act requires additional certification – from the FBI Director, National Intelligence Director, and Secretary of Homeland Security – that each Syrian or Iraqi refugee is not a security threat before he or she is resettled in the United States.

FBI Director James Comey has testified that there is no data available to vet Syrian refugees. In the absence of this data needed to properly certify a refugee, congressional leadership argues that today’s bill effectively pauses the program. Unfortunately, this argument neglects the Obama administration’s willingness to ignore the law to accomplish its own goals. Further, this bill only pertains to individuals with documents from Iraq and Syria in spite of reports that terrorists are using forged documents for entry. Just yesterday, five Syrians were caught in Honduras attempting to enter the U.S. with stolen Greek documents.

At the end of July, U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36) introduced a bill, H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act, that would pause the Refugee Resettlement program until properly vetted for efficiency and effectiveness. The bill has gathered support from almost one-third of the Republican conference.

[Last week,] in an effort to improve the American SAFE Act, Rep. Babin and 15 of his colleagues [Brat, Brooks, Meadows, Duncan (SC), Barletta, Loudermilk, LaMalfa, Hice, DeSantis, Sanford, Gohmert, Culberson, Graves (LA), Garrett, and Walker] offered a modification of H.R. 3314 that would halt the resettlement program for 180 days and require a GAO study within 90 days on the economic impact on state and local government. Chairman Pete Sessions and Republican leadership rejected this and every other amendment, instead opting for a closed rule that enabled leadership to rush through H.R. 4038.

The most prudent and humanitarian response is to stop the refugee resettlement program and reallocate that funding to safe zones or refugee camps abroad. The Center for Immigration Studies reports that for the money spent to resettle one refugee in America, we could be helping twelve refugees abroad. Therefore, if the goal is to help as many people as possible while keeping America safe, Congress could choose to help twelve times more refugees in areas close to their home without increasing the security threats facing our nation.

Considering almost thirty governors, including liberal Republicans and a Democrat, have publicly announced their opposition to resettling Syrian refugees in their states, this is no time for surrender or show-votes. Government funding expires on December 11th. Congress has an opportunity to use the upcoming omnibus funding bill to deal with the refugee crisis in an efficient, cost-effective way that protects the American people.

Take ACTION:  Call your representative and senators and ask them to support adding Rep. Brian Babin’s bill, H.R. 3314, to the upcoming spending bill, with an added provision to have the money from refugee resettlement reallocated to helping refugees abroad.

U.S. Capitol Switchboard in D.C. (202) 224-3121

A member of Illinois’ Congressional delegation says America must act quickly to provide a safe haven for thousands of Christians in the Middle East who are threatened by ISIS. U.S. Representative Randy Hultgren (R-says legislation would expedite the paperwork and ensure proper security measures are in place to weed out any terrorist disguised as a Christian refugee.

Partner with Illinois Family Institute as we continue to stand
on the front lines for marriage, family, life and liberty.

By 2nd Vote

Again, the City of Houston is at the center of the liberal assault on religious liberty and traditional values.

Today, Houstonians head to the ballot box to vote on Proposition 1, also known as the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO).

The latest article from The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness highlighted the high stakes of today’s decision using 2nd Vote’s research:

[R]esidents aren’t the only ones having a say in the debate. According to groups supporting the measure, a number of big businesses have gotten behind the ballot initiative, urging voters to say “yes.” Seven of the biggest include:

1.     Apple
2.     BASF
3.     Dell
4.     Dow Co.
5.     General Electric
6.     Hewlett Packard
7.     United Airlines

HERO has been controversial since it was first implemented in 2014 and Houston area pastors leading the effort to recall the measure had their sermons subpoenaed by city attorneys. 2nd Vote stood with the Family Research Council and the Houston pastors just one year ago this week in support of religious liberty.

More on the HERO measure from The Heritage Foundation

Ryan T. Anderson, Senior Research Fellow:

Once again big business wants its freedom to operate according to its values, but wants to deny that freedom to others… In Houston they are advocating for the kind of policy that has elsewhere penalized family businesses of bakers, florists and photographers, as well as faith-based adoption agencies. This is cultural cronyism at its worst.

United Airlines Funds Advocacy for HERO

2nd Vote’s research team found political advertising paid for by the Business Coalition for Prop 1 in the weeks leading up to today’s vote. A newspaper ad signed by executives from JPMorgan Chase, UnitedHealthCare, Citi, HSBC Bank and others in support of the HERO measure ran in the Houston Chronicle.

The latest election finance reports shows a direct contribution of $10,000 made by United Airlines to this organization.

Does United Airlines align with your values? Tell their leadership why companies shouldn’t undermine religious liberties here or through the United Airlines Twitter page.

Thousands of parents in District 211, the largest high school district in Illinois, should be outraged. And anyone who rightly fears the ravenous appetite of the slavering dumb beast we call the federal government should be equally outraged. The beast’s minions in the laughingly called Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which is a gangrenous section of the cancerous federal Department of Education, has concluded its 2-year investigation of District 211’s actions with regard to a male student who wishes he were a girl. Through its minion the OCR, the Fed-Beast (FEAST), lusting after the bodies and brains of children, has concluded that District 211 has violated federal law.

The very troubled boy—and he is a boy—at the center of this phantasmagorical tale wishes to remain anonymous, so hereafter he will be referred to as “Lola.” Lola has been seeking unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room—yes, you heard that right. Lola—an actual, factual boy, complete, one presumes, with the requisite anatomical parts—wants unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room, which would, of course, include the shower.

Plot summary

What District 211 has already agreed to:

In acts of contortionist-worthy back-bending and misguided charity, the district has agreed to have all school records identify gender-dysphoric students by their new names, identify them as the sex they are not, and refer to them by opposite-sex pronouns (which is to say that the district is lying on school records). In addition, gender-rejecting students are allowed to use opposite-sex bathrooms and are allowed to play on opposite-sex sports teams.

But that’s not all, folks, oh no, that’s not all. According to the Chicago Tribune, the district has also “installed four privacy curtains in unused areas of the locker room and another one around the shower.” This means a boy may, if he wishes, walk through the locker room to the shower area, where presumably girls are showering, to use these private changing areas.

But, even that leaves the beast, its minions, and its allies slavering for more.

What beast-ally John Knight demands:

John Knight, Lola’s ACLU-attorney and FEAST’s ally, vehemently opposes the district’s excessive accommodation of Lola, bleating that requiring Lola to use private dressing areas is unacceptable:

It’s not voluntary, it’s mandatory for her [sic]….It’s one thing to say to all the girls, ‘You can choose if you want some extra privacy,’ but it’s another thing to say, ‘You, and you alone, must use them.’ That sends a pretty strong signal to her [sic] that she’s [sic] not accepted and the district does not see her [sic] as girl.

Word to Knight, neither the “the district” nor any student has a moral obligation to “see her [sic] as a girl,” because he isn’t a girl.

What the beast-minion OCR has decided:

Student A has not only received an unequal opportunity to benefit from the District’s educational program, but has also experienced an ongoing sense of isolation and ostracism throughout her high school enrollment at the school….All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities—this is a basic civil right….Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room.

So, now it’s a civil right for boys to use girls’ restrooms, changing areas, and showers.

By “law” the OCR is referring to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on “sex,” which the unelected minions in the OCR have unilaterally decided includes “gender identity” and “gender expression.” When the law was written, “sex” meant objective biological sex, and the law has not changed. The school policy changes that the beast-minion OCR is demanding would require that if gender-rejecting humans with male DNA and penises want to change clothes and shower with girls, they must be allowed to do so—and girls must comply or change in private areas. Not wanting to shower with boys is now seen as an act of bigotry and hatred.

What bothers Lola:

According to the Chicago Tribune, “the student, who plays for the school on a girls’ sports team, said she [sic] broke down in tears after her [sic] coaches reprimanded her [sic] for using the locker room to change. The coach told her [sic] some students felt uncomfortable dressing in front of her [sic].”

Think about what that means. It means Lola—a boy—is offended that girls don’t want to change clothes in front of him. Lola is essentially demanding that everyone accept his delusion that he is in reality a girl.

What Superintendent Daniel Cates rightly and courageously said about this arrogant and preposterous decision:

“The policy that OCR seeks to impose on District 211  is a serious overreach with precedent-setting implications….The students in our schools are teenagers, not adults, and one’s gender is not the same as one’s anatomy….Boys and girls are in separate locker rooms—where there are open changing areas and open shower facilities—for a reason.”

Conclusion

It’s not tax rates or immigration policy or ISIS that most gravely injures and weakens America. It’s the bloodthirsty devouring of the hearts, minds, and bodies of our children; the dismantling of marriage and family; and the erosion of the First Amendment. Deception and depravity are consuming our children, often by nibbles that barely register and at other times by huge chunks. The father of lies conceals his deceit under a cloak of compassion. Christians should not be so easily deceived or so easily cowed.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
~Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll~

Boldly standing for the truth.  Is truth a priority for you?

Jonah Goldberg

It’s been a good month for champions of the traditional family, but don’t expect the family wars to be ending any time soon.

In recent weeks, a barrage of new evidence has come to light demonstrating what was once common sense. “Family structure matters” (in the words of my American Enterprise Institute colleague Brad Wilcox, who is also the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia).

And Princeton University and the left-of-center Brookings Institution released a study that reported “most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide range of outcomes.” Why this is so is still hotly contested.

Another study, coauthored by Wilcox, found that states with more married parents do better on a broad range of economic indicators, including upward mobility for poor children and lower rates of child poverty. On most economic indicators, the Washington Post summarized, “the share of parents who are married in a state is a better predictor of that state’s economic health than the racial composition and educational attainment of the state’s residents.”

Boys in particular do much better when raised in a more traditional family environment, according to a new report from MIT. This is further corroboration of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s famous 1965 warning: “From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos.”

Perhaps most intriguing — and dismaying — a new study by Nicholas Zill of the Institute of Family Studies found that adopted children have a harder time at school than kids raised by their biological parents. What makes this so dismaying is that adoptive parents tend to be better off financially and are just as willing as traditional parents, if not more so, to put in the time and effort of raising kids.

Zill’s finding highlights the problem with traditional family triumphalism. Adoption is a wonderful thing, and just because there are challenges that come with adoption, no one would ever argue that the problems adopted kids face make the alternatives to adoption better. Kids left in orphanages or trapped in abusive homes do even worse.

In other words, every sweeping statement that the traditional family is best must come with a slew of caveats, chief among them: “Compared to what?” A little girl in a Chinese or Russian orphanage is undoubtedly better off with two loving gay or lesbian parents in America. A kid raised by two biological parents who are in a nasty and loveless marriage will likely benefit from her parents getting divorced.

“In general,” writes St. Lawrence University professor Steven Horwitz, “comparisons of different types of family structures must avoid the ‘Nirvana Fallacy’ by not comparing an idealized vision of married parenthood with a more realistic perspective on single parenthood. The choices facing couples in the real world are always about comparing imperfect alternatives.”

Of course, that point can be made about almost every human endeavor, because we live in a flawed world. And just because we don’t — and can’t — live in perfect consistency with our ideals, that is not an argument against the ideals themselves.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that family structure is so controversial. The family, far more than government or schools, is the institution we draw the most meaning from. From the day we are born, it gives us our identity, our language and our expectations about how the world should work. Before we become individuals or citizens or voters, we are first and foremost part of a family. That is why social engineers throughout the ages see it as a competitor to, or problem for, the state.

And the family wars will never end, because family matters — a lot.

This article was originally posted at the Los Angles Times.

Written by David French

There is no longer a common American living experience. There is no longer even the possibility of consensus around the the proper role of government in American lives. The decline of the family is altering American life so profoundly that the two parties are increasingly forced to choose the demographic groups they aim to serve, and to win elections by mobilizing and turning out those groups rather than persuading undecided voters.

This is a bleak picture, but it’s perhaps the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from the leading social science, from the strategies of the two leading political parties, and from simple experience — from living outside our own bubbles and understanding the hopes and fears of fellow citizens.

Single parents and other economically vulnerable populations tend to crave security. A single mom of three public-school children working as the bookkeeper for a struggling small business may well, ultimately, be better off under an economic system that drives growth and creates better-paying job opportunities for her. But such a system must seem a remote concern when weighed against the need to pay the rent while her kids’ deadbeat dad is behind on child support, and the difficulty of affording health insurance when her employer’s contribution keeps shrinking. If the battle is between the hope of opportunity and the promise of security, won’t a rational person choose the latter every time?

Now, imagine a different, married mother of three. She and her husband both work, and they make enough money that if one were to become unemployed, the family would still have enough to get by. But they don’t want to “get by.” They want their kids out of their struggling public school — there’s a great private school down the road — and on the path to a good college education. Their combined income puts them solidly above-average, but they don’t feel rich, because they can’t afford their entirely reasonable family goals: They’ve skipped vacations two of the last three years, and their Honda Pilot just passed 150,000 miles. They have security. What they want is opportunity, a chance to get just a bit further ahead. A tax and regulatory burden that depresses the job market, makes it harder to start businesses, and funnels cash directly out of their pockets is a burden — a burden that provides them with zero discernible benefits.

You’re the single mother. If you’re watching the GOP debate, is anyone speaking to your personal economic experience? Unless you’re strongly pro-life and a committed Christian, it’s highly unlikely that anyone on that stage can offer much promise of the security — the certainty — that you so desperately crave.

Conversely, if you’re the married mother in a reasonably prosperous family, the Democratic debate — unless you’re strongly pro-choice and a committed social liberal — is likely to seem appalling. More taxes? More regulation? Socialism? Are you serious?It’s the language of security, not opportunity, and it guarantees that you’ll pay more money to the government while continuing to see virtually no meaningful return. In frustration and disbelief, you turn to your husband and exclaim, “Other people make terrible life choices, and we pay for it.”

#share#No wonder political parties spend so much time talking about social issues. Shared religious and cultural values represent one way to bridge the country’s economic and demographic divides. Single moms may crave security, but if they’re revolted at the killing of unborn children, or if they don’t want to see their public-school children barred from praying on campus, they’ll vote Republican. Married moms in Massachusetts may pour countless thousands into a broken and wasteful combination of local, state, and federal welfare programs, but if they want to keep abortion legal and celebrate the upcoming nuptials of their lesbian neighbors, they’ll crawl over broken glass to vote Democrat.

Every four years conservatives and liberals look for the right messenger, the right person to make their case to the public. But you can package conservatism as appealingly as possible, and it’s still conservatism — it’s still, at base, a message of hope through opportunity and liberty, a message that’s terrifying to the most economically insecure. You can package liberalism as appealingly as possible, and it’s still liberalism — it’s still, at base, a message that millions of Americans who don’t feel prosperous, who have their own concerns and struggles, should pour more and more money into systems that won’t help their families, that won’t adequately educate their children, and that keep holding back their own hopes and dreams.

There’s no real political answer to this great American divide. While we can certainly tweak the tax code and other policies to eliminate marriage penalties and incentivize two-parent child-rearing, what government policy is going to give young people who’ve never seen an intact marriage the fortitude to hang together when times are tough? What political initiative is going to fill our impoverished urban and rural enclaves with eligible, employable bachelors? The sexual revolution — by detaching child-rearing from marriage — has done great and lasting damage to the fabric of American life, damage that no politician can repair.

In 2016, one party will win the White House, but no party will repair the cultural breach. That’s a job for parents, for pastors, and for those of us who reach out to provide others with the model of a life that pop culture scorns but history shows is indispensable to human flourishing, a life of faith and fidelity. It’s no longer enough for us to live our own values. We must help our fellow citizens rediscover ancient truths — always against the headwind of a political and cultural movement dedicated to the lie that they can live as they wish while attaining the security they wish for. It’s a daunting task, but it’s far more consequential than any vote we’ll ever cast.

— David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.

This article was originally posted here

By Rebecca Downs

Planned Parenthood claims to represent the welfare and interests of women, but how do the facts and figures add up?

Live Action created some helpful graphics to illustrate the fact that most Americans do not depend on Planned Parenthood.

While supporters of Planned Parenthood tout the organization’s services for women and claim that women’s health care will be over if Planned Parenthood is defunded, the facts show otherwise.

The abortion giant receives $1.4 million a day—over $500 million a year from taxpayers, and it has steadily obtained more taxpayer dollars over the years.

But this money need not fill the coffers of Planned Parenthood, who, in many ways, behaves more like a wealthy corporation than a non-profit. There are over 13,000 comprehensive health clinicsacross the country that can, will, and already do serve women and their families. These effective clinics could do so much more if the $1.4 million a day were redirected to them.

While Planned Parenthood touts its clientele, that figure has drastically gone down over the years, and it pales in comparison to the amount of patients served by comprehensive health clinics, which outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 20 to 1. The abortion business has lost over 400,000 clients since 2006, according to the organization’s annual reports.
In fact, most women currently do not depend on Planned Parenthood. Based on the group’s own annual reports, 98 percent of women in the U.S. will never visit a Planned Parenthood facility in a given year. Women’s health care will not be negatively affectedif the flow of taxpayer dollars to the group is cut; however, health care will actually improve when the money is channeled more appropriately to these comprehensive health clinics.

The numbers are even more revealing when it comes to basic women’s health services, such as breast exams. Planned Parenthood claims it provides this critical service for women; however, the abortion business has steadily cut health services, while increasing abortions. Only 0.8 percent of women of reproductive age went to Planned Parenthood for a breast exam last year, according to the group’s own numbers.

These numbers show why it does not make sense for the federal government to pour $1.4 million a day into an organization that perpetuates a litany of human rights abuses. If we wish to fund women’s health, it’s time to redirect Planned Parenthood’s funding into the clinics that truly serve women.

Post originally found here

You may have heard some in the media say that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage has finally settled the divisive issue of marriage. The courts have now determined that both genders are no longer necessary in marriage.  That assumption is probably just wishful thinking on their part.

I have been teaching a worldview class this fall at a home school co-op.  In setting the table to discuss the life issue, I went back to look at the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton court decisions which forced abortion on America in 1973.

The two issues of abortion and marriage are strikingly similar.  In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to rewrite the biological truth of conception upon the nation.  In 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to rewrite the biological truth of gender upon the nation.  Over 40 years later, people still know the truth that when a woman gets pregnant she is pregnant with a human being.   Forty years from now, I believe people will still know that men and women are uniquely different and by design children innately need a mom and a dad.

Here’s some confirmation of this.  On February 5, 1973, TIME magazine wrote an article called “A Stunning Approval for Abortion.”  They described how, in a 7-2 decision, the court expanded abortion in all 50 states.  They stated that even those that allowed abortion already would have to expand it.  They also noted how Justice Harry Blackmun, under a “right to privacy” he found in the 14^th Amendment allowed abortion, and since a fetus was not human, it had no rights that trump this right of privacy.   (TIME totally missed the cruel irony of the 14^th Amendment being an amendment intended to prohibit the return of slavery because the courts and many states had thought slaves were not humans with rights.  This is why a judge’s view of original intent is so important.)

TIME underplayed the opposition to abortion as a weak movement made up mostly of some religious conservatives and Catholic priests.  They also did the exact same thing that is being done today to the opponents of genderless marriage.  They compared the opposition to the Roe v. Wade ruling with those who opposed court rulings on racial desegregation, implying that pro-lifers were similar to racists of the 50’s and would fade away.

However, in their very last paragraph, TIME did concede that according to a poll taken right before the court ruling, the nation was split right down the middle on the abortion question.  Those supporting abortion in 1973 had a 1% lead. TIME noted that it was “a lightning rod for intense national debate.”

How did the U.S. Supreme Court do in settling that divisive social issue with a ruling finally deciding the legality of abortion?  The answer is – not very well.    Forty-one years later, Gallup polling reported that 48% of Americans oppose abortion calling themselves “pro-life” and 47% say that they are “pro-choice.”

Likewise, numerous polls have found that Americans were evenly split on the issue of marriage.  A national poll in April conducted by the Associated Press found that 50% said the U.S. Supreme Court should rule in favor of same-sex marriage, 48% said that is should not.   In July, two weeks after the ruling, the AP surveyed again to find that 41% opposed the ruling, while 39% supported it.

By Samuel Smith

Christian ethicist Russell Moore has said that congregations too afraid of being political to speak out against acts of immorality, like abortion, are similar to churches in the 1800s that remained silent on the issue of slavery.

As the featured speaker at the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s fifth annual Diane Knippers memorial lecture, Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, criticized mainstream Christian congregations that have relaxed their teachings on key issues of sexual morality and other social issues in order to blend in with the “ambient culture” and appeal to today’s society.

Moore explained that religious conservatives need to “preserve” the biblical truth for future generations. Although secular society likes to claim that Christian conservatives are on the “wrong side of history,” Moore told the audience that Christian conservatives should not be afraid to have their biblical convictions conflict with mainstream society and that they should really embrace the distinctive Christian message.

“It’s a recipe for death, precisely for the same reasons that Jesus is speaking to Pilate about a Kingdom that does not originate from the world. Christianity always thrives the best when we have a distinctive word and a distinctive word that is rooted in a specific view of authority. Jesus said, ‘I have come to bear witness for the truth.'”

“The arguments that we see happening right now over issues of human sexuality are not really about human sexuality,” Moore continued. “These are debates of apostolic authority.”

Despite the fact that religious conservative views on issues like gay marriage and abortion directly conflict with the views of a secular world, Moore assured that the historic Christian message has always conflicted with the world’s understanding.

Although many congregations in the last 50 years have altered their views and teachings to accommodate the modern worldviews, Moore warned that churches that have historically distanced themselves from the biblical truth eventually failed to exist.

“The miraculous was startling in the first century and in every other century, so the churches who discarded it no longer had anything distinctive to say and withered and died into obscurity,” Moore stated. “The churches who were willing to speak with a voice of authority about resurrection, the coming of Christ, supernatural regeneration by the Holy Spirit are the churches who had a witness to be able to bring forward.”

Moore further argued that secularism is not the world’s final “stopping point.”

“Secularism is just a stop along the path,” Moore said. “We must have a distinctive word in terms of claim to authority, and we must be willing to bear witness. We must be a conversionist people, which means that if we truly believe that the spirit of God is able to transform someone from sinner to saint, we will be the people who will not hesitate to speak the truth and to speak what often will be unpopular truths.”

Churches have long been responsible for speaking the unpopular truths on social issues, not just in today’s world where abortion and gay marriage are the hotly contested subjects, Moore said.

“The churches in 1845 Georgia that did not speak to slavery, were speaking to slavery,” Moore said. “If you stand in the pulpit and call people to repentance for drunkenness and sexual immorality, but you do not call them to repentance for man-stealing and kidnapping and pretending to own another human being, you have spoken to that issue by saying that it will not be something for which one must give an account at the judgement.”

“The churches in 1925 Mississippi that spoke about drunkenness and adultery, but did not speak about lynching, were speaking to lynching,” Moore continued. “They were baptizing the status quo by not calling people to repentance for a grave sin against God and against a neighbor.”

“The churches in 21st century America that do not speak to the personhood of the unborn are speaking to the personhood of the unborn by baptizing the status quo and leaving consciences that are wounded and in need of Gospel liberation exactly where they are under accusation, rather than freeing them with a witness that is thought to be political.”

This article was originally posted at ChristianPost.com

By Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D.

Allowing physician-assisted suicide (PAS) would be a grave mistake for four reasons, as explained in a Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, “Always Care, Never Kill.”[1] First, it would endanger the weak and vulnerable. Second, it would corrupt the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship. Third, it would compromise the family and intergenerational commitments. And fourth, it would betray human dignity and equality before the law. Instead of helping people to kill themselves, we should offer them appropriate medical care and human presence.

This Issue Brief focuses on how PAS threatens the weak and marginalized. It explores who is most likely to be coaxed into PAS and how PAS has led to voluntary—and even involuntary—euthanasia in Europe. This lethal logic has even been extended to children and the non-terminally ill disabled.

Physician-Assisted Suicide Threatens the Weak and Marginalized

Physician-assisted suicide will most threaten the weak and marginalized because of the cultural pressures and economic incentives that will drive it. The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, established by Governor Mario Cuomo (D), explained in its report:

The Task Force members unanimously concluded that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia would pose profound risks to many patients.…

…The practices will pose the greatest risks to those who are poor, elderly, members of a minority group, or without access to good medical care.…

…The clinical safeguards that have been proposed to prevent abuse and errors would not be realized in many cases.[2]

The people most likely to be assisted by a physician in their suicide are suffering not simply from terminal illness, but also from depression, mental illness, loneliness, and despair. “Researchers have found hopelessness, which is strongly correlated with depression, to be the factor that most significantly predicts the wish for death,” write Dr. Herbert Hendin and Dr. Kathleen Foley. As Dr. Hendin reports:

Mental illness raises the suicide risk even more than physical illness. Nearly 95 percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated. This is particularly true of those over fifty, who are more prone than younger victims to take their lives during the type of acute depressive episode that responds most effectively to treatment.[3]

From their decades of professional medical practice, Drs. Hendin and Foley report that when patients who ask for a physician’s assistance in suicide “are treated by a physician who can hear their desperation, understand the ambivalence that most feel about their request, treat their depression, and relieve their suffering, their wish to die usually disappears.”[4] They conclude: “Patients requesting suicide need psychiatric evaluation to determine whether they are seriously depressed, mentally incompetent, or for whatever reason do not meet the criteria for assisted suicide.”[5]

Yet only five of the 178 Oregon patients who died under the Oregon assisted-suicide laws in 2013 and 2014 were referred for any psychiatric or psychological evaluation. Remarkably, patients were referred for psychiatric evaluation in less than 5.5 percent of the 859 cases of assisted suicide reported in Oregon since its law went into effect in 1997.[6] “This constitutes medical negligence,” writes Dr. Aaron Kheriaty. Dr. Kheriaty concludes, “To abandon suicidal individuals in the midst of a crisis—under the guise of respecting their autonomy—is socially irresponsible: It undermines sound medical ethics and erodes social solidarity.”[7]

The World’s Experience with Physician-Assisted Suicide Laws Confirms the Lethal Logic

While many assisted-suicide laws attempt to limit PAS eligibility to the terminally ill, and while many laws attempt to provide protections ensuring autonomous consent, the experience of countries with PAS and euthanasia suggests that safeguards fail to ensure effective control.

In 1989, while teaching law and medical ethics at the University of Cambridge, Professor John Keown began to investigate PAS and euthanasia in the Netherlands. He found that key Dutch guidelines, such as requiring an explicit request from the patient, have long been widely violated with virtual impunity.[8] He pointed out that the first of several official surveys conducted by the Dutch found that in 1990 “the total number of life-shortening acts and omissions where the doctor’s primary intention…was to kill, and which are therefore indubitably euthanasiast, is 10,558.”[9]

Shockingly, the majority of these cases were nonvoluntary. Oxford legal scholar John Finnis, commenting on the Dutch data, remarks: “[W]ell over half…were without any explicit request. In the United States that would be over 235,000 unrequested medically accelerated deaths per annum.”[10] In 2013, 1.7 percent (1,807 patients) of all deaths in Belgium were due to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.[11] A 2010 study discovered that 66 of 208 identified deaths in Belgium were administered without an explicit patient request.[12]

Keown confirms that “the undisputed empirical evidence from the Netherlands and Belgium shows widespread breach of the safeguards, not least the sizeable incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia and of non-reporting.”[13] In October of 2013, three judges of the High Court of Ireland voiced the same concern: “[T]he incidence of legally assisted death without explicit request in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland is strikingly high.”[14] And the numbers of those assisted in committed suicide keep growing.[15]

Part of the reason for these troubling statistics is that any purported legal safeguards can be and have been abused, and over time the logic of a “right to die” is extended to ever-wider groups of patients, including the incompetent. Keown describes the logic of PAS as based on judging some lives as unworthy of life:

Once a doctor is prepared to make such a judgment in the case of [a] patient capable of requesting death, the judgment can, logically, equally be made in the case of a patient incapable of requesting death.… If a doctor thinks death would benefit the patient, why should the doctor deny the patient that benefit merely because the patient is incapable of asking for it?… The logical “slippery slope” argument is unanswerable.[16]

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, writing in the Atlantic Monthly, affirms that this is the lesson to take from the Netherlands and that proposed American PAS laws cannot avoid the same outcome:

The Netherlands studies fail to demonstrate that permitting physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will not lead to the nonvoluntary euthanasia of children, the demented, the mentally ill, the old, and others. Indeed, the persistence of abuse and the violation of safeguards, despite publicity and condemnation, suggest that the feared consequences of legalization are exactly its inherent consequences.[17]

The Lethal Logic Extends to Children and Disabled

In 1996, two doctors prosecuted in the Netherlands for the nonvoluntary euthanasia of disabled infants were acquitted when they argued medical necessity.[18] The Dutch courts simply followed the inexorable logic that drives the case for PAS and voluntary euthanasia to a new extent. If necessity justifies ending the life of a suffering patient who requests it, it equally justifies ending the life of a suffering patient who cannot request it. Dutch pediatricians have now devised a protocol for infanticide.[19]

A 2005 study in the New England Journal of Medicine recorded that in the previous seven years, 22 cases of infant euthanasia were reported in the Netherlands.[20] A 2013 Netherlands commission on euthanasia argued that as many as 650 infants per year should be eligible for euthanasia on the basis of the children’s diagnosis as “babies who in spite of very intensive treatment are certain to die in the short term, babies with a poor prognosis and very poor expected quality of life, or babies who are not dependent on intensive treatment but who face a life of severe suffering with no prospect of improvement.”[21] The U.N. Human Rights Committee formally condemned this Dutch infanticide: “The Committee is gravely concerned at reports that new-born handicapped infants have had their lives ended by medical personnel.”[22]

In March 2014, Belgium became the first country to legislatively allow doctors to euthanize “consenting” minors, despite the objections of 160 physicians.[23] In an open letter, these doctors argued that legalization without age restriction was unnecessary, as palliative care is sufficient, and the bill would create excessive pressure on both children and parents to choose premature death.[24] Nevertheless, Belgium went forward and removed the age restrictions.

Diagnoses of disability are now considered sufficient grounds for death. In December 2012, Marc and Eddy Verbessem, 45-year-old deaf twins, were euthanized in a Belgian hospital after they discovered they were going blind.[25] Nancy Verhelst, a 44-year-old transsexual Belgian whose doctors made mistakes in three sex change operations, was left feeling as though she was a “monster.” She then requested—and was granted—euthanasia by lethal injection.[26]

In the Netherlands, the euthanized include Ann G., a 44-year-old woman whose only ailment was chronic anorexia.[27] In the beginning of 2013, Dutch doctors administered a lethal injection to a 70-year-old blind woman because she said the loss of sight constituted “unbearable suffering.”[28] In early 2015, a 47-year-old divorced mother of two suffering from tinnitus, a loud ringing in the ears, was granted physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands.[29] She left behind a 13-year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter.[30]Gerty Casteelen was a 54-year-old psychiatric patient with molysomophobia, a fear of dirt or contamination. Her doctors decided that she would not be able to control her fear and agreed to administer a lethal injection.[31]

The Alternative: True Compassion and Care

Instead of embracing PAS, we should respond to suffering with true compassion and solidarity.[32]People seeking PAS typically suffer from depression or other mental illnesses, as well as simply from loneliness. Instead of helping them to kill themselves, we should offer them appropriate medical care and human presence. For those in physical pain, pain management and other palliative medicine can manage their symptoms effectively. For those for whom death is imminent, hospice care and fellowship can accompany them in their last days. Anything less falls short of what human dignity requires. The real challenge facing society is to make quality end-of-life care available to all.

Originally posted here

Written by Bethany Blankley

The beginning of American law, the concepts of independence and freedom, is rooted in the belief that moral absolutes exist within a universal standard of justice independent from political rulers. The Judeo-Christian faith is not separate from but foundational to just and fair public policies that encourage human flourishing.

More than 2,000 Bible verses teach civics, providing examples of good and evil rulers, judges, and political authorities. These instructions on civics are informed by approximately 500 verses on salvation, 400 on hell, and 250 on heaven—with the overall foundation that right living best leads to a peaceful, thriving society.

Six of the Ten Commandments specifically define civil law. The western concept and definition of murder, manslaughter, theft, assault, marriage, birth, and other civil and criminal matters are defined and ascribed judicial punishment under Mosaic law. Religious freedom and self-governance are defined in the First Commandment, family governance in the Second, private property rights in the Fifth, and a fair trial with witnesses in the Sixth.

The founding fathers knew this, recalling Exodus 18 and 21, Leviticus 18, Ezekiel 3, and Isaiah 33:22, among others, understanding the Judeo-Christian God, the Lord, as lawgiver, judge, and king. Following this model, they devised three branches of government. Congress, the legislative branch—represents the lawgiver; the judicial branch—the judge, and the executive branch—the king, primary ruler, head of government.

But the founding fathers also knew the danger of authoritarian rule that some Puritans had tried to implement in 17th century American colonies.

For example, a non-Puritan and someone who didn’t agree with Puritan laws, would not have been able to live in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. John Winthrop, a Puritan attorney and its governor, sought to instill a magisterial government that prohibited anyone from voting unless the magistrate approved the specific Christian men who fit its criteria. Winthrop opposed codifying laws, believing that democracy was “the meanest and worst of all forms of government.”

The “City on a Hill” to which Winthrop referred in an often-quoted sermon, ended up being a place that excluded anyone who disagreed with magisterial rule. His colony effectively illustrated the very non-Biblical values that restrain freedom and liberty—and the opposite of meaning of the teaching he referenced.

Upon arrival to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1630s, English clergyman and lawyer Roger Williams opposed Winthrop’s form of government. But the Colony’s rulers didn’t allow for free thought or speech. They rejected his notion of “freedom of conscience.” First the magistrates placed Williams under house arrest. He was forbidden from discussing his ideas. But when he continued to speak his mind– in his own home– the magistrates banished him from the colony. Next, they changed their mind and sought to kill him.

Winthrop warned Williams, who fled, leaving his family behind. His suffering was great he and barely survived. Because of this, he wrote one of the most influential treatises in history, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution. Thomas Jefferson not only read Williams’s treatise, but also John Locke’s, Two Treatises of Government, in which Locke referenced over 1,500 Bible verses.

Were it not for Roger Williams’s influence, it’s unlikely Thomas Jefferson would have written what he did in the Declaration of Independence. In it, Jefferson references God four times:

• “The laws of nature and nature’s God,”
• All men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,”
• “The Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,” and
• “The protection of Divine Providence.”

Jefferson intentionally declared that a deity exists and is knowable by human reason. He identified this deity as a creator and judge. He asked in Notes on the State of Virginia:

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”

Foundational to the Declaration of Independence was creationism and morality. As John Adams remarked,

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The founders ensured the validity of freedom originating from God, not man. Their assurance rested in “In God We Trust,” printed on American money, and in “One Nation Under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Bible is most often used when courts require oaths of office for U.S. Presidents and elected officials. The Judeo-Christian God is mentioned in all 50 state constitutions. The Supreme Court opens each session verbally declaring, “God save the United States of America.”

The founders did not seek to create a theocracy understanding Biblical Christianity to be non-coercive. They understood that only through Biblical principles freedom and liberty exist (Gal. 5:1). As Dostoevsky and others from atheist countries assert, “if there is no God, everything is permitted.”

The founders knew that in every human spirit lies an innate desire to be free. That spirit of freedom became the personification of American character.

As Ronald Reagan said in 1952, “America is less of a place than an idea, and if it is an idea, and I believe that to be true, it is an idea that has been deep in the souls of Man.” As the soul informs the mind, heart, and body, it also informs every area of life in which people live—including politics.

This article was orignially posted at Constitution.com

When a decorated soldier was told to turn a blind eye from intervening in the case of a child who was being repeatedly raped and beaten, he knew it was an order he had to refuse. Now, doing the right thing will cost him his career.Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland, a Green Beret, learned from a 12 year-old Afghan boy’s mother that an Afghan police commander had chained her son to his bed in order to repeatedly abuse him…all occurring on a United States military base. The commander was being trained under Sgt. Martland’s mentorship.

Sgt. Martland confronted the Afghan rapist on a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, who admitted and laughed off his sexually abusive actions, disregarding the concerns. Like any red-blooded American would (and should) do, Sgt. Martland would not stand by and allow the child to be hurt any longer.

A physical altercation broke out between Sgt. Martland and the Afghan commander. Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland admits he confronted the Afghan police commander and physically threw him off the base because he was fed up with the commander’s brutal sexual abuse of a village boy.

For protecting a child against an admitted rapist, Sgt. Martland has been told he will be dismissed from the military in November.

Did you catch that? Instead of standing with a soldier who was protecting a child against an admitted rapist, the military is kicking him out! I can’t imagine anyone who wouldn’t have done the same thing in Sgt. Martland’s boots.

I certainly wouldn’t punish any man for doing what any man should do…stepping in to protect a defenseless child from physical abuse!

No matter where our soldiers serve, no matter what local customs may dictate, every person serving in our military has a moral obligation to protect children anywhere and anytime abuse occurs.

TAKE ACTION:  Click HERE to sign our petition to the U.S. House and U.S. Senate Armed Services Committees, urging them to demand the Pentagon clear Sgt. Martland’s record and allow him to return to his regular duties.

This article was originally posted at AFA.net.

One of the things we must absolutely learn how to do better than we do is distinguish things that differ, especially things that look similar but which differ radically. We must learn to say, as Dorothy Sayers once famously said, distinguo. I distinguish.

There is a profound difference between the doctrine of interposition/lesser magistrates on the one hand and the doctrine of liberty of conscience on the other. There are places where they overlap, but there are also instances where they have nothing to do with each other. When a magistrate decides to interpose, he is doing it as a matter of conscience. But he is not exercising his liberty — he is discharging a duty.

A citizen has the right to be left alone in any number of areas. We ought not to tell him what days on which he must mow his lawn, we ought not require him to photograph homosexual unions, we ought not to tell him that the Department of Agriculture requires him to floss daily.  Even if he is mistaken, and his conscience along with him, we should still let him close his shop in honor of the coming of the Great Pumpkin. What he does with his time, his money, his business is, in fact, his business.

Now in some instances, a person’s private religious convictions can become a public matter, as when the Thugs of India used their free exercise of religion in the pursuit of killing and robbing people. The point is that the exact boundaries of the liberties of every citizen is a religious issue, and is a issue that cannot be settled from up behind the Agnostic Bench. If you don’t know what truth is, then the first thing you should do is quit deciding what truths are acceptable. A Christian judge would say that the Thug’s religious liberties are a matter of no consequence. The Communist judge says that the Christian’s religious liberties are a matter of no consequence. The Agnostic judge doesn’t know what is going on, but just sits there, trying to look wise. He thinks nobody will notice, but we have.

An agent of the state occupies a different station than does the private citizen; it is a different office entirely. The law that governs his behavior cannot be neutral any more than the law that bounds the private citizen’s liberties can be neutral. Scripture asks, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). The answer, in case you were wondering, is no.

So that means that a society has to decide what it will allow its citizens to do and why, and what it will require its officers to do and why. The religious framework that encompasses both of these needs to be the same one. Because I am a Christian, I believe that this framework needs to be a Christian one. When it comes down to differences between Christians, and it is an area where the state must act or not act (e.g. divorce), the state must decide which of the two Christian positions is right. When they do this, they must take great care to be right. Neutrality is impossible.

Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, and she was right. But would a devout Roman Catholic, on the basis of an absolutist rejection of remarriage after divorce, have the right to refuse a marriage license to Kim Davis on one of her later marriage? I would say no, but my purpose here is not to get into that debate. My point is that the society cannot be neutral about that debate. The applicants must either be served or refused. One or the other must happen. So if we say no, and are asked why, we need to be able to say more than just because.

This is why secularism is dead on its feet. We have gotten to the reductio ad absurdum portion of the Q&A session and we are no longer bound together by a hidden-generic-protestant-north-american consensus. For decades, we thought that this consensus was what everyone “just knew.” Turns out they don’t.

The doctrine of interposition means that Christian magistrates must be looking for an opportunity to just say no, and to do so on an issue of sufficient moral magnitude as to justify the societal dislocations that will result. Whether the municipal snowplows should run on the sabbath (and when do sabbath hours start anyway?) is not one of those issues. The two issues that I think are ripe candidates for interposition are abortion and same sex mirage. Mayors, judges, governors, county clerks, etc. should simply refuse to cooperate with evil mandates concerning them, and should issue decisions of their own restricting them. A Christian governor should simply outlaw abortion in his state.

Some are concerned that this would lead to a shooting war, but I don’t think that is necessary at all. If the feds send in the troops to keep the abortion clinics in Texas open, then another three states should follow suit and ban abortion. They can’t put everyone in jail. The Civil Rights movement didn’t lead to a shooting war. All that is necessary for this to become completely unwieldy for the bad guys is for enough good guys to say enough. As Edmund Burke might put it, were he here, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to have reservations about the doctrine of interposition.

These issues — abortion and same sex mirage — are good issues. They are weighty issues, whether weighed in the balances of Scripture, nature, or history. They are pressing issues — everyone knows a great deal about both of them. They are issues where victory is actually attainable. If everyone who objected to abortion acted like it, it would be gone this time next week. The same thing is true of same sex mirage.

The problem is not that we don’t have enough people who object. The problem is that those who object are so darn sweet. The problem is not that we don’t have enough resources. Our problem is that we won’t use what we have.

And so in the meantime it is fully appropriate for us to be fighting for “carve outs” in the law for private citizens. Pacifists shouldn’t have to fight in the army, and evangelical photographers and bakers should not be forced to celebrate abominations. But officers have a duty to interpose. They have a duty to prevent. A photographer should accept the carve out when it is offered. The official should not. For an officer of society to ratify high disobedience to God is as much compromise as would be exhibited by a florist who celebrated a same sex reception.

The secularist says that if you are not willing to issue a license to a same sex couple, then you should resign the position. I say something that sounds similar, only reversed. I would say that if you are not willing to interpose, you should resign the position. Why? Because you are not willing to fulfill the obligations that God assigned to that office. It is the will of God that all lesser officials, all lesser magistrates, hold their offices in the fear of God, which means that they must be willing to interpose when the greater magistrates mandate broad social rebellion.

And that is exactly where we are right now. We need leaders, at every level, who will refuse to participate in the rebellion.

This article was originally posted here

It’s called the Equality Act (H.R. 3185), which was introduced by liberal Democrats in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House.

Linda Harvey of Mission America says homosexual activists were pushing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act – until it reached a stalemate in Congress. She says the Equality Act accomplishes the same thing but goes much farther: it would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to make homosexuality and gender identity “civil rights” under U.S. law.

The goal, Harvey claims, is to “greatly expand” the rights of homosexuals to mirror employment and housing protections for minorities.

The Human Rights Campaign seems to agree with Harvey. On its website, the homosexual lobbying group claims that the June “victory” via the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned state marriage laws nationwide, did not do enough for homosexuals.

“In most states in this country,” HRC proclaims on its website, “a couple who gets married at 10 a.m. remains at risk of being fired from their jobs at noon and evicted from their home by 2 p.m.”

If the bill becomes law, Harvey predicts homosexuals would be legally shielded the same way that minorities are protected by federal law.

And she has another prediction, too.

“This way they’re going to be teaching homosexual behavior at the earliest stages,” she warns, describing a push for “civil rights” for gender-confused children even in elementary school.

If it passes, Harvey contends the Equality Act will become “the homosexual agenda on steroids.”

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your U.S. Representative to ask him/her to vote against H.R. 3185.

The so-called “Equality Act” would quash the civil rights of conservative people of faith.  This onerous legislation specifically limits the ability of people who object to its requirements from seeking accommodations based on their religious beliefs in natural marriage. Thus, in the battle between special rights for homosexuals and freedom, the Equality Act strips conscientious objectors of their freedom and would, by law, require their compliance with the LGBT agenda.

Editor’s note:  In Illinois, this tyrannical legislation is being cosponsored by U.S. Representatives Cheri Bustos (D-East Moline), Danny Davis (D-Chicago),  Tammy Duckworth (D-Schaumburg), Bill Foster (D-Naperville), Luis Gutierrez (D-Chicago), Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), Mike Quigley (D-Chicago), Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), and Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston).

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com.