Indiana and Arkansas lawmakers headed back to the drawing boards recently to rewrite language for their states’ respective Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA), due to heavy backlash from businesses and advocates of homosexuality.

The angry opposition to religious freedom is the exact reason every state needs legal protections for faith.

Every American, regardless of political or religious views, should be free to live and work according to their conscience without fear of punishment and backlash from the government. Regardless of what advocates of homosexual behavior say, our government was formed to be freedom’s greatest protector, not its greatest threat.

AFA sent Action Alerts into Arkansas and Indiana early last week, calling on the state’s citizens to urge their governors to sign the initial religious freedom measures put before him by their state’s lawmakers. They were good bills.

Last Wednesday, in the wake of pressure, Hutchinson instead called for changes to Arkansas’ religious freedom bill. He signed the revised bill on Thursday. Similarly, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed his state’s revised bill on Thursday.

We have often shared case after case of Americans who were forced into making business decisions that were not in line with their faith convictions, such as bakers, florists and photographers who were pressured into providing services for same-sex weddings – or punished for not doing so – even though their convictions dictated otherwise.

Americans should never be asked to violate their convictions against homosexual behavior by endorsing it through their businesses. Our nation thrives only when we tolerate a diversity of opinions and not allow the government to punish citizens for their beliefs.

Written by R.R. Reno

None of the dire outcomes predicted by those campaigning against the Indiana RFRA have materialized in jurisdictions that already have versions of the law. Aside from the specific matter of participation in a gay wedding, there has not been a single case in which someone has claimed a religious right to refuse to serve or sell to gays or lesbians. Employment? There exists only one case from 1985—and in that case the court denied the claim to a religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws. Facts belie the outcry and expose it for the propaganda effort that it is.

This campaign of misinformation comes at a cost. For some people, RFRA protection is a matter of life and death.

Take Mary Stinemetz, a Jehovah’s Witness in Kansas who needed a liver transplant but would not accept a blood transfusion for religious reasons. To get such an operation, she would have to go a hospital in Nebraska. Kansas Medicaid, which had a policy of only covering in-state procedures, refused to cover the transplant (even though the Omaha procedure would have cost less than the in-state one with a blood transfusion).

Stinemetz litigated, claiming religious exemption from the policy, but Kansas had no RFRA. State attorneys argued she had no right to the exemption. After going through the appeal process, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that the state constitution implied RFRA-like protections and granted her the exemption. But it was too late. Her health had deteriorated to the point where a transplant was futile.

She died in October 2012.

We don’t hear about Mary Stinemetz. That’s because the propaganda about the Indiana law and other RFRA laws blankets reality and hides the true human costs of inadequate protection of religious freedom. This epitomizes the elitism of the gay rights movement, which is in many respects a lobby for the One Percent. Two rich lawyers from New Jersey simply have to be able to compel a florist in Denver to make arrangements for their wedding.

If getting rid of Indiana’s law comes at the cost of the lives of people like Mary Stinemetz, well, that’s too bad.

R. R. Reno is editor of First Things.

Constitutional revisionists within our mainstream press claim that First Amendment religious protections extend only to churches and homes. So, why is it that they become silent as church mice when President Barack Obama publicly appeals to his Christian faith in defending his political positions?

Obama, who claims to be a Christian (and whom many in the press proclaim with dogmatic certainty he is), cites the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount to justify his “evolution” on marriage.

Obama now embraces and promotes a definition of marriage that contradicts explicit Old Testament moral laws that, unlike ceremonial laws, still pertain. And he conveniently ignores more salient New Testament passages related to both homosexuality and marriage that would have be wildly distasteful to his party base. But nonetheless, according to Obama, it is his religious beliefs that shape his political support for the legal recognition of homoerotic unions as marriages. Usually, when liberals in the press are within earshot of a conservative politician citing Scripture, they become a cacophonous pack of baying hounds. In contrast, when Obama cites Scripture, they become stridulating crickets.

While Obama cherry-picks Scripture, plucking verses way out of context to defend his “evolution” on marriage, nary a liberal pundit screams “VIOLATION OF CHURCH AND STATE” as they do when conservatives mention Scripture to defend their political views. That I know of, neither Chris Matthews, nor Eric Zorn, nor Frank Bruni has accused Obama of imposing his religious beliefs on all of America or of violating the separation of church and state when Obama dared to walk his faith out of his pew, home, and heart and into the glaring light of the public square.

While transitioning to his now more fully evolved position (watch for more evolution to come), Obama said this in defense of civil unions:

I believe in civil unions….If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. [emphasis added]

Obama’s mind notwithstanding, all Scripture is God-breathed, so Paul speaks only truth. And Romans 1 is not in the least obscure. Romans 1 is clear, unequivocal, and consistent with passages in Genesis, Leviticus, 1 Timothy, and 1 Corinthians regarding God’s view of homosexuality.

When Obama’s transition to an even more advanced evolutionary but less biblically-consonant position was complete, he added this strained hermeneutical defense:

[Michelle and I] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.

In addition to dismissing passages in the Old Testament and the words of Paul in Romans, 1 Timothy, and 1 Corinthians, Obama ignores Jesus’ own words regarding the true nature of marriage:

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

Bearing in mind Obama’s odd use of Scripture, read these illuminating excerpts from Obama’s speech at the recent  National Prayer Breakfast:

There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.

… I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt — not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right…that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth — our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments.  And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing….

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion…for their own nihilistic ends.  And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom — freedom of religion — the right to practice our faith how we choose….and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

There’s wisdom in our founders writing in those documents that help found this nation the notion of freedom of religion…. They also understood the need to uphold freedom of speech, that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  For to infringe on one right under the pretext of protecting another is a betrayal of both. [emphasis added]

Obama’s sinful perversion of and misuse of Scripture to defend non-marriage as marriage and the eager willingness of “progressives” to undermine religious liberty in deference to sexual libertinism render these words all the more compelling—and ironic.

Progressive pundits ought to admit their double standard when it comes to appeals to Scripture: Politicians can appeal to Scripture so long as their religious appeals never lead to policies that liberals don’t like.

And Obama ought to admit that he doesn’t study Scripture to inform his leadership. Rather he distorts and exploits Scripture to defend his political positions.

Of course, such admissions would require a commitment to honesty.

The secret, which is a dirty secret only to “progressive” pundits, is that it is constitutionally permissible for theologically conservative Christians to allow their religious beliefs to shape their political decisions.

So, brothers and sisters in Christ, step out of your homes  and pews and speak truth in the public square. Bring your coats. It’s chilly out there.

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute.

Written by J. Michael Smith

Amid the immigration debate in Washington, D.C., legislation is pending that will make it possible for families who are treated harshly over homeschooling to find refuge in the United States. The legislation was developed by HSLDA along with supportive members of Congress in the wake of the Romeike family’s asylum case. The bill has been introduced as H.R. 1153, the Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act of 2015, and is scheduled for a vote in the House Judiciary Committee this week.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT), joined by original cosponsor Daniel Webster (FL) and Rep. Robert Goodlatte (VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have included specific language that would allow up to 500 grants of asylum to families fleeing homeschool persecution. The Romeike family would be able to reopen their case under the proposed law. The bill, which includes other changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act, including ordering the U.S. Attorney General to hire at least 50 more immigration judges, would make it easier for families who are treated harshly because of homeschooling to be granted asylum.

The bill explicitly refers to homeschooling as a particular social group and specifies that a person is “deemed” to be eligible for asylum if he or she is persecuted for homeschooling or if the person resists anti-homeschooling laws in his country of origin. The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to discuss the bill on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.

“America is a country that protects freedom,” said Webster. “The right of parents to educate their children is a fundamental human right that is internationally acknowledged. This legislation strengthens these opportunities by providing protection for families facing persecution at the hands of their own government and protects their right to practice the basic liberties to educate and nurture their own children.”

Chairman Goodlatte summarized the bill: “The Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act cracks down on fraudulent and baseless asylum claims in order to preserve the integrity of our immigration system. It also makes common sense changes to the law to protect victims of persecution around the globe, like allowing those fleeing their home countries based on their being persecuted for choosing to homeschool their children to apply for asylum. Altogether, this bill strengthens our asylum system so that those truly persecuted can come to the U.S. and seek refuge from oppression.’

Place of Refuge

Michael Farris, HSLDA’s chairman, who argued before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Romeike family, was pleased with the congressional action.

“No one should be forced to flee their homeland in order to homeschool,” Farris said. “But that is what the Romeikes and scores of other families have had to do in order to escape crushing fines, criminal penalties and even the seizure of their children in countries like Germany and Sweden. Homeschooling is no threat to free societies, and I applaud the Congress for taking action so that families like the Romeikes and others who experience harsh treatment may find refuge and legal status in the land of the free.”

The Romeike family came from Germany to the United States in 2008 seeking asylum after being fined for homeschooling their children. With HSLDA’s help, the Romeikes won asylum in 2010.

U.S. immigration judge Lawrence Burman granted the family asylum, saying that the German policy against homeschooling was “repugnant to everything we believe as Americans.” Burman found that the family had a legitimate fear of persecution because of homeschooling and said that the United States should “be a refuge” for the family.

Judge Burman’s favorable decision was overturned in the Sixth Circuit after the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement objected. Soon, the family was appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a deportation order. But although the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the Department of Homeland Security granted the family indefinite deferred action status at the last minute, allowing them to remain in the United States.

Building a Home

The Romeike family now resides in eastern Tennessee. Uwe Romeike, a trained concert pianist, teaches private piano lessons, plays for their church and is an accompanist at a local university. The family has had two more children since coming to the United States. They are grateful to be able to remain, but yearn to be able to seek citizenship.

“We did not want to have to leave our home in Germany in order to homeschool,” Uwe explains. “But when we were harshly treated, America opened its doors to us. America has become our new home. We have become part of our community and have been so welcomed by our brothers and sisters in Tennessee. We want to be citizens of this great country, and we are so grateful to the congressmen for writing this bill.”

“HSLDA’s support has been so helpful, and I am so glad that they continue to work to help homeschoolers abroad who are in trouble,” added his wife, Hanne Romeike. “We love America and our freedom to homeschool. Our seven children love this country, and we are so grateful to God for this incredible blessing.”

HSLDA has reported on numerous cases in Germany and Sweden where families have been denied the right to homeschool, including the Wunderlich family of Germany and the Petersens in Sweden. HSLDA is looking into taking these and other cases to the European Court of Human Rights, as well as other international tribunals, to highlight the need for nations to respect this important right.

Powerful Statement

Michael Donnelly, HSLDA director of global outreach, called the bill “groundbreaking.”

“A country that bans homeschooling is violating the basic human rights of their citizens. It makes me proud that our Congress is willing to make a statement like this—that this right should be recognized and protected,” he said. “I think this bill is going to kickstart serious discussion among Germans and policy makers in other countries, too. What are they going to say when hundreds of families start seeking asylum in the United States fleeing this kind of harsh treatment?”

“Although I see some evidence of slow change in Germany, too many homeschooling families are still treated very harshly, and many still leave the country,” Donnelly continued. “No one should have their children seized or have to leave their home in order to homeschool,” he continued. “Other countries need to sit up and take notice of this too. Sweden, Spain, and Brazil are among some of the places where laws have not been passed to recognize homeschooling or where homeschoolers are treated harshly.”

HSLDA Director of Federal Relations Will Estrada expressed the gratitude everyone at HSLDA and in much of the homeschool community feels at the introduction of this bill.

“I am so thankful to the many supportive members of Congress who have helped develop this legislation including Rep. Daniel Webster (FL) who has been the driving force along with Randy Hultgren (IL), Marlin Stutzman (IN) and Tim Walberg (MI),” he said. “And without the support of Representative Chaffetz and Chairman Goodlatte, this bill would never have seen a vote.”

“The entire homeschool community has had a hand in this also by their tremendous outpouring of support for the Romeike family and for other families who are denied the fundamental freedom to homeschool their children,” Estrada continued. “It’s an incredible privilege for all of us at HSLDA to serve such great families in support of such a worthy cause.”

The bill is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, March 4 in the Judiciary Committee Room (Room 2141) at the Rayburn House Office Building starting at 10 a.m. HSLDA plans to hold a press conference after the bill passes committee, sometime Wednesday afternoon. Mr. Romeike is planning to attend the mark up and press conference. Local homeschoolers are encouraged to attend the committee mark up. Although no public testimony will be taken, a strong showing will demonstrate public support and interest in the bill.

TAKE ACTION: Please contact your U.S. representative and ask him or her to support the homeschool asylum language in H.R. 1153. You can reach your representative by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121, or by CLICKING HERE.

Originally published at HSLDA.org.

According to a recent poll from The O’Leary Report and WND that was conducted by Zogby Analytics, roughly two out of three registered voters in America are against the Obama administration providing taxpayer funds to Arab nations that are considered anti-Christian through their laws and treatment of believers.

Visiting the exact verbiage presented before the poll’s participants, they were asked, “Do you agree or disagree that the United States should help certain Arab countries financially and militarily if their countries’ constitutions or laws make being a Christian or atheist a crime punishable by jail or even execution?”

An overwhelming 62.6 percent of respondents disagreed, contending that such funds should be withheld from governments supporting the persecution of Christians. A small fraction (16 percent) agreed that such should continue, while 21 percent couldn’t decide.

My hard-earned money’s going to what?

On a yearly basis, the U.S. federal government sends billions of taxpayer dollars to nations that are hostile to Christianity and uphold Islamic law via constitutional provisions.

“It means that Bible Belt southerners and others who regularly attend church are being taxed to pay for the persecution of Christians in other parts of the world,” explains WND’s Bob Unruh. “And it appears the vast majority of those who write the checks to the IRS are opposed to the distribution of funds.”

O’Leary Report President Bradley S. O’Leary asserts that Americans have spoken and consider it not to be in the country’s best interest to fund nations that support and harbor militant Muslims.

“According to the poll results, Americans are more politically opposed to military and economic aid going to Arab countries that have religious bias,” reports O’Leary, who authored Shut Up, America!, The Audacity of Deceit andAmerica’s War on Christianity.“The future in the Middle East will come not just from opposing Muslim extremists, but also opposing an Arab rule of law that doesn’t guarantee religious freedom.”

Results show that men are slightly more against subsidizing nations that enforce anti-religious laws (64.3 percent) than women (61.2 percent). On the other hand, 18 percent of men agreed about funding them, compared to just 15.2 percent of women.

However, there was a much more pronounced dichotomy among partisan lines on the issue.

“Democrats were far more lenient to those who persecute Christians, with 51.1 percent opposing such subsidies and 21.9 percent approving — [a] large number, 26.6 percent, weren’t sure,” Unruh divulged from the poll. “Republicans and independents were nearly alike, with 69.5 percent opposing the aid and about 12 to 14 percent approving.”

The same goes for how American citizens view the funding when self-proclaiming themselves as adherents to particular political persuasions.

“One in four who self-identified as ‘liberal’ said they would send funds to nations where Christians are not allowed religious freedom, while only about 13 percent of ‘moderates’ would,” WNDs Unruh continued. “For those to identified as “conservative, that column included 14 percent. Of those who said they were conservative on social issues, only 3.5 percent said they would support sending such funds.”

Obama fueling the fire of terrorism?

On the average year, the U.S. provides foreign countries anywhere from $40─50 billion in aid, with numerous Arab anti-Christian governments on the receiving end.

An example of this was demonstrated in 2013, when it was reported that Obama was funding the government of Egypt while it was headed by the infamous Muslim group that has been internationally recognized as a terrorist organization.

This was covered in an article titled “Billion-Dollar Giveaway to the Muslim Brotherhood.” In it, the author pointed out how Obama’s described the “Arab Spring” as a “movement toward democracy,” calling his depiction nothing short of “ludicrous fiction.”

“Promising upwards of a billion dollars to such a regime is bad enough in its own context,” wrote Front Page Mag’s Arnold Ahlert. “That the Obama administration is seemingly oblivious to the timing of this announcement, as well as one regarding the Syrian giveaway, borders on surreal.”

Who’s saying what?

To the surprise of many, Christians weren’t the demographic group in the poll most opposed to subsidizing anti-Christian governments.

“Jewish respondents actually were more opposed to the funding than Christians,” WND reported. “Jewish respondents opposed such subsidies by a 71 to 3.8 percent margin while Protestants opposed it 69 to 13 percent and Catholics opposed it 58 to 21 percent.”

On the other end of the equation, Hispanics were the only demographic group who supported U.S. tax dollars going to nations enforcing anti-Christian laws and policies, with 42 percent agreeing to such funding and only 32 percent of them opposing the aid.

The poll separated the demographic results even further.

“There wasn’t major variation with regard to region or income levels … about two-thirds opposed the funding and one-fifth endorsed it, with the remaining not sure,” WND reported. “Rural residents were most emphatic with their opposition, with 74 percent taking that stance.”

Results also showed that the older the respondents, the more opposed they were to funding anti-Christian regimes.

“The poll found age had little to do with opposition to funding anti-Christian governments,” WND’s report informed. “Those 70 and older opposed it by an 88 to 4.8 percent margin. Those 44 to 69 opposed it 75 to 7.1 percent, and those 18 to 24 opposed it 71 to 12 percent.”

One small group out of the nearly 900 voters surveyed last month responded in a way not anticipated.

“Startlingly, there were dozens of people who responded to the poll who confirmed they had gone without food for 24 hours over the course of the past month ‘due to a lack of food or money,’” Unruh indicated. “Only 40 percent in that category would deprive Shariah nations of funding.”

From bargain shoppers to sharpshooters to Wall Street gurus, most Americans put a foot down to their tax dollars supporting pro-jihad nations.

“Wal-Mart shoppers oppose subsidies by significant numbers and those sympathetic to the tea party movement oppose the funding by a margin of 66.5 to 23.8 percent,” WND disclosed. “Sixty-one percent of gun owners said such subsidies were wrong, as did 65 percent of stock market investors.”

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is in hot water with omniscient Chicago Tribune pundit Rex Huppke for claiming ignorance about President Barack Obama’s faith. In answer to a question about whether he believes Obama is a Christian, Walker said he didn’t know.

So, what’s a politician to do? hmmm…

I know, give the answer “progressives” desire. Leftist columnist Rex Huppke pontificated that this is what politicians should assert about the interior religious beliefs and affections of Barack Obama: Yes, Obama is a Christian.

Since I’m not privy to the interior beliefs and affections of Huppke, I don’t know if he believes Obama is a Christian or if he’s merely suggesting that this is the most strategically savvy response.

I do know this, however, it’s unlikely Huppke knows if Obama is a Christian. This is not to say Obama isn’t. It’s merely to say that it’s unlikely Huppke knows with absolute certainty whether Obama is a Christian, because there is a wee bit of evidence to the contrary.

In order to help illuminate Obama’s faith for those who believe that possible 2016 presidential contenders must have a definitive and correct opinion on whether a lame duck president is a Christian, here are some Bible verses followed by relevant actions of or statements by Obama:

On salvation: Jesus said, “‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”

In contrast, Barack Obama holds this belief on salvation:

There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that [if] people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell….I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell….That’s just not part of my religious makeup.

On “gender”: The Bible teaches “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” And it teaches that “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”

According to the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, Obama “has been the best president for transgender rights, and nobody else is in second place.” The public may be largely unaware of his anti-biblical position on “gender,” however, because Obama has kept his actions intentionally “low-key,” working through executive orders and federal agencies unaccountable to the public.

On marriage: Jesus taught this:

“Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ So they are no longer two but one.” 

Obama, in direct opposition to Christ’s teaching, asserts that “same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

On homosexuality: The Old Testament teaches that “”You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The New Testament affirms Old Testament teaching:

“[T]heir women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Rom. 1:26-27)

And:

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9)

Obama stated the following in a “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month” proclamation:

“I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration…. LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect….I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine.”

No follower of Christ can believe both that homoerotic activity is abominable and that homoerotic activity deserves respect. Homoerotic activity mars the dignity that derives from being created in the image and likeness of a holy God.

On holiness: Holy means set apart for God, sacred, morally perfect, and worthy of veneration. The Bible teaches, “Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”

In a speech in Cairo, Egypt, Obama describes the Koran as the “Holy Koran.”

On murder: The Bible teaches, “You shall not murder,” and “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”

Obama defends the legal right to kill preborn children—including third-trimester babies capable of feeling pain and surviving outside the womb and on whom doctors perform surgery.

On lying: The Bible teaches that “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight,” and “Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.”

Barack Obama told the “Lie of the Year” when he stated that under Obamacare, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

According to Obama’s friend and former campaign manager, David Axelrod, Obama lied during the last campaign when he said he opposed the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

And Obama lied when he said he has not changed his position on using executive authority to stop deportation of undocumented immigrants.

On false teachers: Saint Peter writes that “false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them.”

Obama announced that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Does Obama consider it slander to say that Mohammed is a false prophet who has brought destructive heresies to the world?

Inquiring minds wonder what Huppke thinks of I John 2:4, which says this about those who claim to be followers of Christ: “Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Or what Jesus said in Matthew 7:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Or these words of Jesus: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits.” What kind of fruits do lying, denying the singularity of the salvific work of Christ, the promotion of same-sex mirage, the vigorous support of intrauterine murder—including the murder of nearly full-term babies—constitute? I would argue his fruits are fetid, poisonous fruits.

Jesus tells us to “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” The Left mistakenly believes that this means Christians must not discriminate between right and wrong actions. Well, that’s not exactly accurate. The Left believes that Christians ought not hold any biblical views on behavior with which the Left disagrees. So, it’s fine by “progressives” to “judge” racism and bestiality as wrong but wicked to “judge” homoerotic activity as wrong.

The truth is Christians are prohibited from hypocrisy. Christians are prohibited from judging the behavior of others as wrong if they themselves are engaging in it.

God has provided us with his Word to help us discern truth from lies and right from wrong. I guess it can be used too to help possible presidential contenders figure out if Obama is a Christian. Of course, only God knows with certainty if Obama is a follower of Christ. What’s curious is how Rex Huppke has concluded with dogmatic absolutism that Obama is a Christian.

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute.

I’m pleased to see that the Southern Poverty Law Center has come to its senses and apologized to Dr. Ben Carson, removing him from their “extremist” list. But they need to apologize to me too, since I’m still on their list, along with a number of other Christian leaders whom they have branded anti-gay extremists.

To be sure, I have considered it a badge of honor to be on the SPLC’s list, actually writing an article in 2012 thanking them for placing me in their elite category of “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right.”

And, needless to say, I am not a famed children’s neuro-surgeon and potential presidential candidate. In other words, I am not Dr. Ben Carson.

But if the SPLC is truly wanting to do the right thing and this is not simply an embarrassing moment of their own extremism coming to light, then this would be a good time to start apologizing some more.

Several years ago, I received a letter from Mark Potok, spokesman and director of the SPLC, offering to enlighten me in the error of my ways if I, along with others receiving the letter, had been duped by various pro-family organizations.

I immediately reached out to Mr. Potok and the SPLC, but never received a reply.

Subsequently, I wrote a strong open letter to him, once again without receiving a reply.

Perhaps honest dialogue and interaction is not what the SPLC is looking for? Perhaps their radical agenda is based on labeling and defaming their ideological opponents?

The problem, of course, is that the SPLC did lots of wonderful work in the past, exposing hate groups that are worthy of the hate name, such as White Supremacists and Black Supremacists and Neo-Nazis.

Now, tragically, they have added conservative Christian organizations and individuals to their “hate” lists, and many people continue to take their listings seriously.

One man even tried to carry out an act of mass murder at the headquarters of a Christian organization placed on the SPLC’s “hate group” list, finding their location by way of SPLC’s “hate map.”

What makes this all the more disturbing is the specious nature of the evidence they offer in branding conservative Christians “extremists” and labelling their organizations “hate groups.”

I’ll use myself as a case in point.

On their page devoted to me, they write that, “Michael Brown is not typical of most who push the idea that a cabal of liberal media elites have orchestrated a so-called ‘homosexual agenda’ to indoctrinate children into a lifestyle that makes a mockery of Christian values.”

Yet I’m still labelled an “extremist” and listed as one of the “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right.” (Also on this list were men like David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and Malik Zulu Shabbaz, former leader of the New Black Panthers.)

They also write, “Unlike many other voices on the religious right, Brown generally has avoided the kind of slashing rhetoric that often devolves into rank defamation. His work is heavily footnoted and avoids the blanket pronouncements that have gotten others in trouble. But he still can sound conspiratorial.”

I guess you can be careful and nuanced in your wording as well as painstakingly thorough in documenting every statement, yet you can still make it onto their “extremist” list if your viewpoints smack of conservative moral values.

It seems, then, that it is one’s beliefs and values, not the accuracy of one’s claims, that make one an “extremist.”

What, then, is the evidence they cite out of more than 1,000 pages I have written addressing the issue of homosexuality, more than 20 other books on other subjects, and multiplied thousands of hours of radio broadcasts, sermons, and lectures devoted to a wide range of biblical, theological, and social topics?

First, they cite my statement that gay activists deny there is a gay agenda. (I kid you not.)

But this, of course, is a commonly known fact and even forms part of the written semantic strategy of gay activists. In other words, don’t use the term “homosexual agenda” but say, “gay and lesbian civil rights.” (For those who actually deny there’s such a thing as a gay agenda, please tell it to the pantheon of gay activist organizations, such as the HRC, NGLTF, Lamda Legal, GLSEN, GLAAD, and many others. All these organizations have clearly articulated goals and they have helped bring about numerous social changes in recent years, pointing to the success of their agenda.)

Second, the SPLC cites my statement that, “[I]t is not good that homosexual behavior is presented as just another alternative to heterosexual behavior, that bisexuality is celebrated, that transgenderism [sic] is normalized, that sex-change surgery is presented as the thing to do, that ex-gays are ridiculed and their very existence denied.”

Yes, this is part of their evidence that I am a dangerous, radical right, extremist.

Third, they state that, “Brown has also been known to make spurious claims linking homosexuality and pedophilia.”

Actually, in my book A Queer Thing Happened to America, which they cite and quote in their article, I wrote this: MICHAEL BROWN IS NOT EQUATING HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE WITH PEDOPHILIA. MICHAEL BROWN IS NOT CALLING ALL HOMOSEXUALS PEDOPHILES. (Bold caps in the original.)

How could they possibly miss this?

What I have compared is the arguments used by pederast activists and gay activists (such as, I was born this way; I can’t change; this is about love; this is found in all cultures; etc.). I have not compared the acts.

As for the article they reference regarding Jerry Sandusky, I stated there that “the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts,” explaining, though, that almost no one wanted to talk about the fact that the acts were homosexual in nature. (Having sex with teenage boys and young men is not the same as raping a baby.)

The SPLC claims that pedophiles who prey on boys are not homosexual predators, but that flies in the face of the history of homosexual “man-boy love,” not to mention ignoring the legal and scientific documents that speak of “homosexual pedophiles” and “heterosexual pedophiles.”

As for the rest of the SPLC’s evidence – well, there is none, aside from taking issue with my call to, “Speak now or forever hold your peace,” by which I mean that we need to speak up now since gay activists and their allies increasingly want to silence people like me. (They do this, for example, by labelling us haters and extremists!)

All that being said, I’m truly honored to be on the hit lists of groups like the SPLC, the HRC, and GLAAD, and I do wear these listings as a badge of honor (see Matthew 5:10-12).

But if the SPLC is truly wanting to make amends for their dangerous and misleading listings, I will gladly accept their apologies and encourage them to apologize to others as well.

If not, I’d love to debate the relevant issues publicly, be it on my radio show or in a neutral, moderated setting, discussing facts rather than allegations. With the vast resources of the SPLC, they should have no problem finding an adequate opponent to take me on.

So, Mr. Potok and other SPLC leaders, what do you say? Will it be an apology or a civil debate?

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

In October 2014, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) put Dr. Benjamin Carson on its “Extremist Watch List.” Why? Because Dr. Carson holds the traditional, historical, and true belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and has the courage to express that belief.

Who else is on this “Extremist Watch List”? In addition to a host of unsavory Neo-Nazis, KKK members, and skinheads, the SPLC lists the following as “extremists”:

• Dr. Michael Brown, Bible scholar, author, and radio host
• Cliff Kincaid, director of Accuracy in Media
• Charles Murray, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of The Bell Curve and Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010
• Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council

The depth of the ignorance and malignity of the SPLC’s leaders is exposed through their defamation of a man of such unquestioned integrity as Dr. Carson.

After being exposed by Bill O’Reilly on his Fox News Channel program this week (video here), and receiving “intense criticism” from the public, the far Left SPLC decided to reverse their decision and issue an apology to Dr. Carson—well, an apology of sorts. You know, the sort that’s not really an apology. Here’s an excerpt from their deeply contrite apology:

In October 2014, we posted an “Extremist File” of Dr. Ben Carson. This week, as we’ve come under intense criticism for doing so, we’ve reviewed our profile and have concluded that it did not meet our standards, so we have taken it down and apologize to Dr. Carson for having posted it. 

We’ve also come to the conclusion that the question of whether a better-researched profile of Dr. Carson should or should not be included in our “Extremist Files” is taking attention from the fact that Dr. Carson has, in fact, made a number of statements that express views that we believe most people would conclude are extreme….We laud Dr. Carson for his many contributions to medicine and his philanthropic work, and we, like so many others, are inspired by his personal story. Nevertheless…because Dr. Carson is such a prominent person, we believe that his views should be closely examined.

I wouldn’t want to go so far as to claim that the SPLC is a racist organization, but we can’t help but wonder if Dr. Carson’s skin color may have factored into the SPLC’s decision to remove him from their fear-mongering, money-making “Extremist Watch List” while leaving Dr. Brown, Cliff Kincaid, Charles Murray, and Tony Perkins on the list.

One brief word about “extremism”: “Extremist” is a free-floating term with no fixed meaning relative to truth or goodness. Being an “extremist” can be either good or bad depending on the activity or belief from which one has become distanced. In the midst of a culture so corrupt and decadent that citizens cheer when men legally wed men and women flock to a movie that extols the pleasures of sadomasochistic sex, we should thank God that for our “extremist” status.

If having a public forum and expressing the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman warrant inclusion on a list of hateful extremists, then the SPLC must be either short-staffed, which seems unlikely given the millions of dollars they suck from a gullible public, or they’re slackers.

There are countless Jews and Christians from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant faith traditions who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And many of these men and women have access to public forums in which they express their beliefs. They express their beliefs in college, university, and seminary classrooms; podcasts; sermons; scholarly journals, magazines; newspapers; websites; speaking engagements; and news programs. So, why are they not on the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center’s “extremist” list?

Perhaps the reasons for the SPLC’s oddly truncated list are twofold:

1.) A common tactic of homosexual activists is to exploit the natural sheep-like human tendency to desire membership in the cool group and the natural human tendency to avoid pain and conflict. The Left maligns leaders who tell the truth about homoeroticism so that others who also hold these same true beliefs will not want to be associated with them. The Left thereby effectively marginalizes truth-tellers.

2.) The SPLC leaders surely know that if they included every public person who affirms the truth that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity, the SPLC would discredit itself—further.

We should learn three lessons from this newest unforced error from the SPLC.

Christians need to speak the truth in love about homosexuality and gender confusion with the perseverance and boldness that the Left speaks lies.

Second, Christians need to publicly come alongside those who are speaking the truth about homosexuality, gender confusion, marriage, and children’s rights.

Finally, Christians need to be willing to be persecuted for expressing biblical truth—which is to say, truth—about homosexuality and gender confusion.

Temporal and eternal lives are at stake.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a stay paving the way for Alabama probate judges to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses and perform the ceremonies. Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver tells OneNewsNow that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore issued a memo to the judges instructing them not to do so because a federal court lacks jurisdiction to force them to do it.

“We fully support that,” Staver emphasizes. “We’re ready to defend any Alabama probate judge who refuses to participate – and we’re actually willing also to come against those who violate now the administrative order of the chief justice.”

Liberty Counsel is representing Nick Williams and other probate judges in Alabama who refuse to participate in same-sex marriages. “And we fully support not only the letter and the memorandum and now most recently the administrative order from the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore,” Staver adds.

Some of the probate judges are issuing the licenses, but Staver says Judge Moore is on target with his instruction forbidding them to do it – an argument the chief justice himself has made.

“This is to be applauded,” states the Liberty Counsel founder. “This may set up a clash between the federal and state system, a clash that is far overdue – because these federal judges have gone way beyond their authority assuming that they can order the rest of state authorities and officials to participate in an immoral act such as same-sex marriage.”

Staver points out that the Alabama code doesn’t require a judge of probate to perform marriage for anyone – so they can refuse if they choose. A federal judge has no jurisdiction over them.

Read Judge Moore’s order to Alabama probate judges

Many of us have wondered how long it would be before a prominent official proclaimed that rogue federal judges, like the proverbial emperor, have no clothes and thus no authority to make up laws.

That’s what Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore did this past week in a letter to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, in which he began by asserting that “the recent ruling of Judge Callie Granade … has raised serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction over the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.”

In 2006, Alabama voters approved the marriage measure by 81 percent to 19 percent. On January 23, Judge Granade, a George W. Bush appointee at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, became the latest federal judge to join the lemming brigade and leap off the Cliffs of Insanity to find a previously unknown constitutional “right” to marriages lacking a bride or a groom.

She ruled that Alabama’s clear and timeless definition violated the 14thAmendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process. Then she issued a two-week stay of her ruling, perhaps so that Alabamans can ponder their loss of meaningful citizenship in a self-governing republic.

When the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 to afford the nation’s freed slaves the protection of the law found in the Fifth Amendment, one can only imagine a typical discussion on the assembly floor of various statehouses, including Alabama’s:

“Tell me again why Rhett can’t marry Barney? I know that’s where the Founders were really going when they ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791. I say, it was quite clever of them to foresee using freed slaves someday as a pretext.”

In his letter, Judge Moore reminded the governor that, “As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage.”

After citing Alabama’s Constitution and court cases, Judge Moore quoted from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) that required Utah to prohibit legalized polygamy in order to join the union. He wrote:

“Even the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the basic foundation of marriage and family upon which our Country rests is ‘the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.’”

Noting that “44 federal courts have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states,” Moore went on to praise the Alabama Probate Judges Association, “which has advised probate judges to follow Alabama law in refusing to license marriages between two members of the same sex.”

Judge Moore knows a little about bucking the system. In 1995, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to remove a wooden Ten Commandments plaque that he kept on his courtroom wall. They lost. In 2001, as Alabama’s Chief Justice, he had a large Ten Commandments monument installed in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery. After he refused to enforce an order by a federal judge to remove the monument, he himself was removed from office in November 2003 by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. He unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2006 and 2010, but was re-elected as Alabama Chief Justice in 2012.

If only for the purpose of confounding the media, which love to portray Alabama and the rest of the South as a hotbed of drooling, racist homophobes out of the film Deliverance, it would have been nice to see this kind of forthright courage coming out of a northern or western state.

After all, scenes of Birmingham Commissioner of Public Safety Bull Connor’s men using fire hoses and nightsticks on peaceful demonstrators back in 1963 are as vivid as the latest civil rights documentary. And the movie Selma is a fresh reminder of the epic struggle to overcome resistance to integration.

Judge Moore risks being equated with Bull Connor, because that’s part of the left’s game plan of intimidation. But he’s a principled jurist who swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not to genuflect to lawless federal judges who are raining legal havoc on the nation. For all the moral-laden language they use, these emperors without clothes are hell-bent on casting aside the moral restraints that allow society to flourish.

Speaking of restraints, is anyone in authority going to suggest that Associate Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, both of whom have actually officiated at same-sex ceremonies, recuse themselves from the monumental marriage case that the Court will hear this spring?

They’ve abandoned any pretext of objectivity and are practically daring someone to call them on it.

Congressional leaders? Presidential candidates? Chief Justice John Roberts? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

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

Despite the bitter cold and snow that characterizes this time of year, we always manage to find ways that warm our hearts. Lately all you have to do is look at the gas prices.

According to the AAA, gasoline prices are starting to increase after dropping to the lowest levels since 2009.  Today, the national average now sitting at $2.11 (as of 2/04/15).  The lower cost for gasoline has placed an additional $14 billion of disposable income in consumer’s hands. Yes, there is joy to be found amidst the cold—that is until the politicians take notice.

Jumping at the first opportunity, top Congressional lawmakers in Washington D.C. are now proposing a raise of the federal fuel tax. Currently, the tax stands at 18.4 cents per gallon, as it has been since 1994.

Ironically, such calls are now being heard from the Republican Party, a group that just promised to cut taxes and spending this past election.

U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the new chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said, “I just think that option is there, it’s clearly one of the options.”  Other top ranking U.S. Senate Republicans such as U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD) have also expressed interest.

Leading Democrats, including U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have been waiting for the right opportunity. Pelosi stated at a recent press conference, “If there’s ever going to be an opportunity to raise the gas tax, the time when gas prices are so low—oil prices are so low—is the time to do it.”

U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has proposed H.R. 680 — a bill that would raise the gasoline tax from the current rate of 18.4 cents a gallon to 33.4 cents a gallon.  This legislation would phase in the 15 cent increase to the gas tax over a period of three years and then the tax would rise with inflation.  Illinois’ U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston) is one of two dozen federal lawmakers co-sponsoring this gasoline tax.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Trucking Association and AAA are also actively supporting this legislation.

Federal legislators say that the increase in revenue will go to the Highway Trust Fund for the purpose of rebuilding crumbling roadways and bridges, though there are also considerations for more funding for public transportation systems and even additional subsidies for oil companies.

To be fair, a tax on gasoline for the funding of infrastructure is in principle, a positive policy. Those who use the roads the most should pay a larger share of the upkeep cost. However, the economy is still in a fragile state, unemployment is slowly inching down, there are no signs of serious cuts in government spending, and the voters have just sent a strong message this past November that the tax and spend policies must stop.

Furthermore, the U.S. Congress has exerted little effort in ensuring that the current funds are properly spent. As the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, the Highway Trust Fund spends around 25 percent of its budget on ventures outside of that jurisdiction such as subways, streetcars, buses, bicycle and nature paths, and landscaping—all at the expense of road and bridge projects.

Just because gas prices are currently low, there’s no guarantee that they will continue as such.  This definitely does not warrant yet another tax increase on American families.

TAKE ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Illinois’ U.S. Senators Durbin and Kirk as well as your own U.S. Representative.  Tell them to stop any attempt to increase the gasoline tax.  Let them know that working families cannot afford to give the government more of our hard-earned money on a daily necessity such as gas.

This is simple common sense. By going to Iraq and Syria to join the Islamic State’s jihad, these Muslims have joined an entity that has declared war against the United States. They have committed treason. They have forfeited the rights and privileges of citizenship. But it will be interesting to see who opposes this, and on what grounds.

“Cruz Files Bill to Ban American Islamic State Fighters from Returning to U.S.,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, January 23, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) will file legislation on Friday to ban American citizens who fight alongside the Islamic State (IS) and other terror groups from returning to the United States, where they pose a significant terror threat, according to sources in the senator’s office.

Cruz, who first proposed the legislation last year, seeks to strip those Americans who travel abroad to fight with IS (also known as ISIL or ISIS) of their U.S. citizenship rights and stop them from coming back stateside.

The bill, known as the Expatriate Terrorist Act (E.T.A.), tightens and updates existing regulations by which a U.S. citizen effectively renounces his or her citizenship.

Cruz said that he is filing the bill partly in response to President Obama’s Tuesday State of the Union address, which he described as “detached from reality” on the foreign policy front.

“President Obama’s approach to foreign policy refuses to acknowledge the threats our enemies pose to our national security—it is detached from reality and making the world a more dangerous place,” said Cruz, who also is releasing a new video that takes aim at Obama for misleading the nation about these threats in his annual address.

Cruz said stripping American IS fighters of their citizenship is a step toward securing the country and restoring the country’s image.

“We’ve seen the grave consequence of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy unravel with respect to Iran, Russia, and now Yemen,” Cruz said. “These consequences are not confined to faraway lands. They directly threaten America and our allies.”

“That is why this week, I am re-filing the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which prevents Americans who have fought abroad for designated terrorist groups from returning to the United States,” he said. “I look forward to working with senators on both sides of the aisle on this and additional measures to secure our nation and restore America’s leadership in the world.”…

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact Illinois’ U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk to ask them to support S. 247, known as the Expatriate Terrorist Act.  American citizens who take an oath to a foreign terrorist organization should have their citizenship revoked.

“When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead…”~ Grace Slick

A week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether to impose same-sex faux-marriage on all 50 states. Judges have already imposed it on 25 states in contravention of the will of the people in those states.

Many on the political Left and Right are predicting that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in June to impose same-sex “mirage” (hat tip to theologian Doug Wilson for that term) on the entire country despite the absurdity of finding anything in the Constitution that would require the legal recognition of homoerotic unions as “marriages.” Such a requirement exists only in the shadowy penumbras formed by the gaseous emanations emitted by the phantasmagorical imaginations of homosexual activists and their judicial accomplices.

It doesn’t take much in the way of augural ability to predict this outcome. You have one justice, Anthony Kennedy, issuing this mind-blowing statement about liberty in 1992: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Well, that was either Anthony Kennedy or Timothy Leary.

Inquiring minds would like to know how Kennedy reconciles this expansive mysterious definition of liberty with lawsuits against Christian business owners whom homosexuals seek to compel to produce a product they have never produced (e.g., cakes or floral arrangements for same-sex faux-marriages) and which violates their religious beliefs.

And it’s impossible to square such a definition of liberty with New York Times op-ed columnist Frank Bruni’s claim that “Baking a cake, arranging roses, running an inn: These aren’t religious acts….” Bruni is unwilling to allow orthodox Christians to define religious liberty in any way that the Left doesn’t like or that affects actions outside their pews, homes, and hearts.

In 1996, Kennedy ruled to overturn a Colorado law that prohibited establishing “sexual orientation” as a basis for a protected class. Such a law was, of course, rational in that “sexual orientation” is just a linguistic legerdemain used to render equivalent heterosexuality—which is constituted by objective criteria like anatomy and biology—and homosexuality—which is constituted solely by feelings and volitional acts. What other condition constituted solely by feelings and volitional acts is granted protected status?

In this case Kennedy wrote that such a law reflected a “bare desire to harm” and was motivated by nothing other than “animus.” Apparently the desire not to open the protected status floodgates to other groups whose “identities” are constituted by their feelings and volitional acts reflects a bare desire to harm such groups in Kennedy’s wonderland. Methinks a hookah-smoking caterpillar had given Kennedy the call.

Then in 2013 when Kennedy voted to overturn parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had passed the House 342-67, passed the Senate 85-14, and had been signed into law by President Bill Clinton, Kennedy argued that the “essence” and “avowed purpose” of DOMA was “to impose a…stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages.”

In Kennedy’s befogged mind, no recognition of the natural procreative potential that inheres the union of a man and woman or of the needs and rights of children could possibly have factored into Congress’s decision to pass DOMA. No siree, it was just a pernicious desire on the parts of 427 Congresspersons and Bill Clinton to stigmatize homosexuals.

To aid in our divination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, let’s take a quick look at the out-of-court shenanigans of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. Ginsburg has officiated at two same-sex “weddings,” and Kagan has officiated at one. At Ginsburg’s first “wedding,” she said, “People who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings…in the marriage relationship.”

At least as illuminating is the statement Ginsburg made at the National Constitution Center about the increasing societal acceptance of pseudogamy (hat tip to Professor Anthony Esolen for that term): “So I see the genius of our Constitution, and of our society, is how much more embracive we have become than we were at the beginning.”

The slippery embracive slope

Perhaps Ginsburg hasn’t foreseen or doesn’t care where our marriage abolitionists the genius of our Constitution is leading us. Our embraciveness has far more embracing yet to do.

Polyamorists and polygamists will ramp up their demands that marriage be “expanded” to allow unions composed of more than two partners. Who is the government to tell them whom they can love? Why should their children have their family structures stigmatized? Why should binary unions receive benefits that plural unions are denied? What, other than animus, could motivate people to oppose plural unions? And how will the legalization of plural unions affect the marriages of couples—hetero or homo?

Next will come the brothers who too are in love. They can’t reproduce, so there’s no risk of birth defects, but even in the case of sibling lovers, the risk of birth defects is relatively small. Moreover, we don’t legally require genetic testing prior to marriage to determine if non-related couples are at high risk of passing on an inherited disease.  And genetic testing can always be done during pregnancy when there’s plenty of time to dispose of defective products of conception. Remember too that Justice Ginsburg has proclaimed from on high that people who love each other should be able to marry. Who are we to judge? If marriage has no inherent nature but rather is merely a social construct, we can reconstruct it in any way embracive sexual anarchists’ and judges’ hearts desire.

Effect on public schools

Once five judges impose same-sex marriage on every state, be prepared for public schools to be recruited into the unholy effort to indoctrinate children with Leftist beliefs about marriage. Once same-sex mirage is imposed on all states, government schools will be compelled to talk about it in glowing, biased terms from kindergarten on.

Parents (and future parents), if you have not yet made plans to exit public schools, the time to do so is now. Your job is not to help children who have the misfortune of being raised by homosexuals feel good about their unjust family structures. Your job is to protect your own child’s mind from  false ideas, to protect their hearts from loving wrongly, and to preserve their innocence.

C.S. Lewis, concerned about the relativism he saw promoted in schools, warns in is book on education, The Abolition of Man, that “Without the aid of trained emotions, the intellect is powerless against the animal organism….The head rules the belly through the chest—the seat…of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments.”

“Progressives” have taken control of public education. They seek to organize the emotions of children by trained habit into stable but wrong sentiments. It is almost impossible to properly organize the emotions of children by trained habit into stable sentiments that reflect truth when they are in public schools for seven hours a day, 186 days a year, for 13 or more years.

In the aftermath of what should be an unthinkable cultural event, Christians can respond rightly or wrongly. To acquiesce or to persist in our cowardly passivity which has facilitated the degradation of marriage and injury to children would heap shame on travesty. Instead, Christians should dig their spines out of the closet, dust them off, and put them to good use. It is hoped they yet have chests that spines can support.

The Truth Project

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details

Written By Howard Slugh

In 2014, activists in Michigan and Arizona successfully lobbied against proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Proponents of the laws were caught off guard, never expecting such fierce opposition to the usually popular legislation. RFRAs’ supporters must learn from this year’s stiff opposition in order to ensure that they are better prepared to defend the laws in the future.

In Arizona, RFRAs’ opponents tarnished the proposed law by misleading the public into believing that, if it passed, religious business owners would suddenly refuse to serve homosexuals. Opponents of Michigan’s proposed statue, emboldened by the successful strategy in Arizona, took this false and incendiary rhetoric to an entirely new level. They absurdly claimed that if Michigan adopted the RFRA, emergency medical technicians (EMTs) who were religious could refuse to treat gays and lesbians who lay suffering on the street.

RFRAs’ supporters must reframe the debate by demonstrating that the critics’ claims are untrue or wildly exaggerated and by providing the public with specific examples of the people protected by RFRAs. An important first step is to understand why states are passing RFRAs and what those laws are intended to accomplish. In 1990, the Supreme Court determined that “generally applicable” laws that incidentally burden the free exercise of religion are not subject to the full protections of the First Amendment. The RFRA, as its title suggests, was intended to “restore” the robust protections that most people thought had applied to religious liberty. The law won strong bipartisan and public support, passing both houses of Congress with only three dissenting votes. At that time, no one imagined that the law might function in the manner described by its recent critics.

In 1997, the Supreme Court decided that the constitutional separation of powers prevented Congress from applying the RFRA to state laws. Therefore, since 1997, people’s religious liberty is less protected from burdensome state laws than from identical federal laws. In order to remedy this imbalance, states began to pass statutes substantially similar to the federal RFRA.

In the early days, these state RFRAs also passed with little or no controversy. Illinois adopted a state RFRA in 1998 with near-unanimous votes in both houses. Today, 19 states and the federal government have RFRA statutes. Cases decided pursuant to these statutes provide actual evidence about how these laws do and do not function.

No state or federal court has ever held that RFRA generally entitles religious business owners to refuse service to gay people. In the 20 years that these laws have existed, there is simply no record of successful cases that would justify the critics’ concerns.

It is predictable that very few, if any, cases would involve arguments that RFRAs allow businesses to refuse to serve gay people. Such a claim simply does not reflect the views of the vast majority of religious Americans. In about half the states in the country, religious business owners serve gay people in the absence of any legal compulsion to do so. Such people have the exact “license to discriminate” that RFRA opponents fear, and yet they choose not to discriminate. There is no reason to believe that religious business owners in states with existing nondiscrimination laws would behave any differently than those in the other half of the county simply because their state adopted an RFRA.

A few prominent cases have occurred in which religious people have claimed a religious obligation to refrain from participating in same-sex weddings, but that is logically distinct from claiming a broad right to discriminate. In fact, the religious people involved in those cases specifically disclaimed a general religious obligation to discriminate against gays. If there is very little evidence that a meaningful number of religious business owners seek to deny general service to gays, there is absolutely no evidence for the even more extreme and absurd claim that religious EMTs want to let gay people die on the street.

Even if a small number of misguided religious outliers claimed that RFRAs allowed them to broadly deny services to gays, it is very likely that they would lose in court. Michigan’s RFRA, like all other RFRAs, does not exempt religious people from a law that is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest no matter how substantially that law burdens their exercise of religion.

Both of the opponents’ fears highlighted above would probably fall within the exception. There is no doubt that a law requiring EMTs to provide life-saving care to anyone in need would meet the narrow-tailoring and compelling-interest requirements. The Supreme Court has noted, and it is obvious on its face, that states have a compelling interest in protecting the lives and health of their citizens. There is no readily apparent less restrictive alternative to that law.

It is very likely that a statute prohibiting discrimination against gay people in public accommodations would also survive within RFRAs’ exception. The Supreme Courthas found that states have a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination in public accommodations. A handful of courts have found that states have acompelling governmental interest in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

It is impossible to know for certain how a court would decide this question, because, as noted above, virtually no one has ever tried to use any RFRA in this manner. Therefore, the strongest claim the critics can honestly make is that if new RFRA laws pass, a very small number of people might attempt to use the laws to refuse service to homosexuals and will probably lose in court. That is far less impressive than the claims they have actually made.

Merely pointing out that RFRAs cannot possibly cause the harms posited by its adversaries is insufficient to convince the public that such laws are worthy of support. RFRA advocates must also demonstrate that religious-liberty statutes have provided tangible benefits to real people. Fortunately, there are a sizable number of cases that establish this point. Federal courts have applied RFRAs in many circumstances, including to protect the right of members of a Brazilian church topossess plants necessary to make sacramental tea; Muslim firefighters’ right towear beards that do not interfere with their equipment; Jehovah’s Witnesses’ right to maintain government employment despite refusing to take a loyalty oath; Native Americans’ right to wear long hair in school; and Rastafarians’ right to not be fired by the government for having a traditional haircut.

State courts have also applied RFRAs to protect their citizens. The Virginia Court of Appeals protected a Native American couple’s right to possess bird feathers used in prayer. The Tennessee Court of Appeals held that the state couldn’t autopsy a man over his family’s religious objections. The Ohio Court of Appeals noted that a statute banning a Sikh man from carrying a ceremonial sword for religious reasons would face scrutiny under a religious-liberty statute.

Religious-liberty statutes are particularly important to religious prisoners. Courts have found, for example, that such laws require Jewish prisoners to be provided kosher food; Muslim prisoners to be provided halal food and access to prayer oils; and Native American prisoners to wear religious clothing and have access to certain items used while praying.

Next year is likely to include more debate over the propriety of state RFRAs. Proponents need to be ready to force opponents to answer why they are more concerned with far-fetched hypothetical harms than with the real benefits RFRAs have provided for 20 years.

— Howard Slugh in an attorney practicing in Washington, D.C. Originally Posted at NationalReview.com.