Get your DVD copy of Michele Bachmann’s IFI 2016 banquet presentation for any donation of $15 or more (includes shipping and handling).  Your donation will help fund the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

Click the button below to donate. Once we receive the donation we will snail-mail you a copy (or multiple copies) of this DVD.

Yesterday, I wrote about the profoundly unjust decision of the ideologically imbalanced three-member panel of commissioners from the Illinois Human Rights Commission who decided that Christian bed and breakfast owner Jim Walder should pay $80,000 for refusing to rent his facilities to a same-sex couple for their civil union ceremony.

In that article, I questioned both the lack of ideological representation on the panel, which included two homosexual activists and no conservatives, as well as on the full 13-member commission. I questioned whether the commission is skirting the law that prohibits more than 7 members of the same political party from serving on the commission by identifying 2 of its members as Independents when in reality they are Democrats.

There are yet more questions about the political composition of the Illinois Human Rights Commission, this time about Commissioner Hermene Hartman who is identified as one of the five Republicans serving on the 13-member commission.

Hartman is the publisher of Chicago “lifestyle publication” N’DIGO.com. Her bio on Huffington Post describes Hartman as “one of the most significant and influential Black women in American publishing….N’DIGO, was founded in 1989, as a weekly lifestyle publication for progressive readers.”

Hartman was a Democrat until Bruce Rauner ran for governor and began disbursing money in the black community, which included, according to the Chicago Tribune, paying Hartman “$10,000 per month for her outreach efforts.”

After Rauner’s victory, he appointed Hartman to the Illinois Human Rights Commission, where the Chicago Sun Times reports Hartman earns “$46,960-a-year…accompanied by personal insurance perks.”

Interesting fiscal tidbit: The Better Government Association (BGA) reports that “Commissioners devoted an average 12.9 hours per month to official state business for the fiscal year 2011.” That comes out to approximately $322 per hour—on average.

The BGA explained that “Time commitments varied widely, from an average of fewer than seven hours per month to 20 hours.” Those who work 20 hours per month make a paltry $207 per hour, while those who work 7 hours per month make $594 per hour. Not bad, not bad at all. Perhaps those workers who are fighting for minimum wage increases should take a gander at what some state employees make in impoverished Illinois.

Hartman endorsed Hillary Clinton in the recent election. Maybe Hartman has converted back to the Democratic Party. If “Independents” Terry Cosgrove (a homosexual activist and pro-feticide fanatic) and Patricia Bakalis Yadgir, and “Republican” Hermene Hartman are all, in reality, Democrats, the Illinois Human Rights Commission is in violation of state law that limits the number of commissioners from the same political party to 7.

My math-challenged pea brain thinks there may be up to 9 Democrats serving on the commission that will decide whether to subordinate constitutionally protected religious liberty to homoerotic privilege.

If you haven’t let Govenor Rauner’s office know what you think of this feckless ruling and the corrupt IHRC, please do so now.

Take ACTION:  Please click HERE to contact Governor Rauner to express your opposition to his appointments of Democrats Hermene Hartman and homosexual activists Duke Alden and to urge him to investigate the Illinois Human Rights Commission’s efforts to circumvent the law prohibiting political imbalance on the Commission.

Listen to this as a podcast HERE.

The Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of individuals just like you.  Without you, we would be unable to represent our Christian values in Springfield or fight the radical agenda being pushed by the godless Left in our culture.

Please consider chipping in $25 or $50 to support our work to stand boldly in the public square.

Click HERE to make a tax-deductible donation.

To make a credit card donation over the phone,
please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.

A three-person panel of commissioners from the 13-member Illinois Human Rights Commission (IHRC) has decided not to review the egregious decision of IHRC administrative law judge Michael Robinson in the discrimination complaint filed by homosexuals Todd and Mark Wathen against Christian bed and breakfast owner Jim Walder.

In 2011, the now “married” Wathens, inquired about renting the Timber Creek Bed & Breakfast facility in Paxton, Illinois for their civil union ceremony. Because of his religious beliefs about the immorality of homoerotic activity and relationships, Mr. Walder informed Todd Wathen that he would not rent his facilities to Mr. Wathen and his partner for a civil union ceremony.

The Wathens then filed a discrimination complaint with the IHRC—a kangaroo-esque tribunal committed to normalizing homoeroticism through quasi-judicial means.

Last spring, Judge Michael Robinson issued his order which would require Mr. Walder to do the following:

– Pay $15,000 each to Todd and Mark Wathen as compensation for their emotional distress arising out of the issue.

-Cease and desist from violating the Human Rights Act by denying same-sex couples access to its facilities and services for marriages and civil unions.

-Offer the Wathens access to the facility, within one year, for an event celebrating their civil union.

-Pay the Wathens’ attorneys $50,000 in fees and $1,218 in costs.

Mr. Walder’s attorney, Jason Craddock, filed an “exception” which was reviewed by the three commissioners who have decided that Judge Robinson’s decision should stand.

If you’re not angry yet, here’s some information that may raise your hackles.

• All of the Illinois Human Rights commissioners are appointed bureaucrats—not elected.

• Only one of the three commissioners who reviewed the Walder case is an attorney.

• Two of the three commissioners who reviewed this case are homosexual activists: Terry Cosgrove and Duke Alden.

• Homosexual activist Duke Alden was appointed to the Illinois Human Rights kangaroo court by Governor Bruce Rauner.

Here’s a bit more information on homosexual activists Cosgrove and Alden:

• Terry Cosgrove was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 2014. He is also a passionate and unrelenting foe of the right of preborn babies to be free from extermination. He is president and CEO of pro-feticide Personal PAC and “has lent assistance to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, National Pro-Choice Resource Center, Voters for Choice, Women’s Campaign Fund and the Emergency Abortion Loan Fund.” Cosgrove was also “honored” with the dubious “Freedom of Choice” award by the Chicago Abortion Fund. Cosgrove was appointed by former Governor Pat Quinn after donating $400,000 to help fund Quinn’s victory over Bill Brady.

• Rauner appointee Democrat Duke Alden is the chairman of Howard Brown Health, an “LGBT” health and social services organization. Alden served on the host committee for a “Presidential Debate Viewing Party” for “Chicago’s LGBT community to cheer on Hillary Clinton.”

The third commissioner on the panel was Patricia Bakalis Yadgir, a Quinn appointee whose husband is Director of Communications and Senior Policy Advisor for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White and whose father is former state comptroller, former state superintendent of education, and former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Michael Bakalis.

Here’s where it really gets interesting. State law prohibits more than seven members of the same political party from serving on the IHRC. Currently there are 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and two “Independents.” And who do you think the two “Independents” are? None other than (no snickering) Terry Cosgrove and Patricia Bakalis Yadgir.

In reality, therefore, there are 8 Democrat and 5 Republican commissioners on the IHRC. And there were no Republicans on the panel reviewing the complaint against the Walders.

So, after learning a bit more about the commissioners who made the decision on the Wathen’s complaint, can anyone read this statement from the Illinois Human Rights Commission with a straight face:

The Commission provides a neutral forum for resolving complaints of discrimination filed under the Illinois Human Rights Act….Our primary responsibility is to make impartial determinations of whether there has been unlawful discrimination, as defined by the Illinois Human Rights Act.

Here are just a few comments about marriage, homoeroticism, and the plight of Christian owners of wedding-related businesses on which the intellectually slothful among us might spend some time ruminating:

• Marriage has an intrinsic nature central to which is sexual differentiation and without which a union is not in reality a marriage.

• The law cannot change the intrinsic nature of marriage. The law can no more transform intrinsically non-marital unions into marriages by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples than it could change cats into dogs by issuing them dog licenses.

• When homosexuals say they are attracted only to persons of their same sex, they are implicitly acknowledging that men and women are fundamentally different. Therefore, a union composed of two people of the same sex is fundamentally different from a union composed of two people of different sexes.

• A union composed of two people of the same sex is the antithesis of a marriage. It is an anti-marriage. The ceremony that solemnizes such a union is an anti-wedding. The cake that is served at the anti-wedding reception is an anti-wedding cake. The floral arrangements adorning an anti-wedding reception are anti-wedding floral arrangements.

• Neither Mr. Walder nor any of the florists, bakers, wedding-venue owners, or photographers who have been sued by petulant homosexuals have refused to serve homosexuals. Rather, they refused to create products or provide services for a type of event for which they have never created products or provided services and one which violates their religious convictions. In fact, many of the Christian business-owners who have been sued have served homosexuals on many occasions—an inconvenient fact for Leftists.

• The term “sexual orientation” should never have been added to anti-discrimination laws or policies. It is a rhetorical invention of the Left contrived to conflate heterosexuality and homoeroticism. Heterosexuality and homoeroticism are not flipsides of the sexuality coin. In any objective sense all humans are heterosexual in that their anatomy and biology are designed for heterosexual activity. Homoeroticism is a disordering of the sexual impulse.

• Unlike other legally protected classes that are objectively constituted and carry no behavioral implications (e.g., race, sex, nation of origin), homoeroticism is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional sexual activity. Therefore, homoeroticism is a condition about which humans have every right to make moral judgments.

Mr. Walder has two remaining options: He may file an appeal to have the case reviewed by the entire ideologically imbalanced 13-member IHRC or file an appeal with an appellate court. Let’s hope he and his legal counsel don’t stop now.

Take ACTION:  Please click HERE to contact Governor Rauner to express your opposition to his appointment of Democrat and homosexual activist Duke Alden and to urge him to investigate the Illinois Human Rights Commission’s efforts to circumvent the law prohibiting political imbalance on the Commission.

Listen to this as a podcast HERE.

The Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of individuals just like you.  Without you, we would be unable to represent our Christian values in Springfield or fight the radical agenda being pushed by the godless Left in our culture.

Please consider chipping in $25 or $50 to support our work to stand boldly in the public square.

Click HERE to make a tax-deductible donation.

To make a credit card donation over the phone,
please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.

Written by Josh Hetzler

I hear a lot of faulty rhetoric these days repeated ardently in the public square – rhetoric that is often self-contradictory and so intellectually weak that it hardly merits retort. Among the clearest examples of this sort of rhetoric can be heard all around us in the following phrase, or similar versions thereof: “Discrimination is discrimination, period, and discrimination of any kind is wrong.” Without exception, this statement is followed up with: “Therefore, the government should prevent and/or penalize all forms of discrimination.”

No doubt you’ve heard this line before. It has quickly become one of the favorite talking points of those who seek to impose every radical perversion of sex and gender ideology onto all those remaining who have not yet gotten on board with their “progressive” thinking. Elevating the concepts of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to specially protected classes is just the most recent crusade of these immoralists.

At surface level, the rhetoric sounds great, right? It appeals to our better side, which tells us (correctly) that we should treat all people with equal dignity and respect. At an emotional level, we would personally feel bad to treat a person differently than others for fear that it might be unfair or even hurtful to that person. And understandably, most of us don’t want that. But once past the surface, the rhetorical value ends.

As with all things, we must take the next step and actually think about what is being said and ask ourselves: Is it true? Is it sound? Is it consistent with objective reality? Does it foster and promote a better and freer society for all?

On all counts, the answer must be “no.” In fact, nothing could be more absurd to the habits of a free people.

After all, freedom itself requires discrimination because it necessitates an endless series of choices, and a choice is nothing if not the exercise of discrimination – for any number of a million different reasons – in favor of some things to the exclusion of others. I choose pizza over salad. You choose women to be your close friends over men. I choose to buy a house in a particular neighborhood instead of others. You choose to practice this religion over that one. And regardless of whether or not we agree with everyone’s choices, we should all agree that each person should be free to make those choices. Not only do those choices enable us to live freely, but they also highlight our uniqueness as individuals.

In reality, every single conscious decision each of us makes in life is an act of discrimination. We weigh our values, convictions, preferences, and interests with every scenario we encounter, and then we apply them in making decisions about how we will live our lives, with whom we will interact, and what things (or people) we will avoid. We are always discriminating. There is no freedom without it. And we all love freedom, don’t we?

Simply put, freedom IS discrimination.

It can be of no value then to simply say that “discrimination is discrimination,” since you are not really saying anything at all except what is already obvious. (e.g. 2 = 2) A reasonable person might then suspect that what the declarant is really doing is injecting some unknown definition of “discrimination” into his statement, without ever bothering to define it. Thus, what he puts forward as obvious is actually anything but obvious, and knowing this, he hides behind the purposeful confusion he has created since the truth simply will not support his agenda.

Moreover, he cannot really mean that all discrimination is wrong and should therefore be unlawful. To say this is to say that we ought to have a totalitarian state that makes all the decisions rather than a free one in which individuals make their own decisions according to their own values.  Yet as I consider the actual direction this rhetoric is taking us, I’m beginning to think that a totalitarian state in which the declarant makes the decisions for all people is precisely what he’s after. Getting his way means that you lose your freedom. He knows this, but he isn’t about to state it openly – preferring instead to declare that he is against all “discrimination.” Ironically, this “anti-discrimination” for which he advocates is exactly the kind of discrimination that free societies cannot tolerate without ceasing to be free.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that individuals sometimes abuse their freedom in ways that are hurtful to others. As neighbors and fellow citizens, we ought to find constructive ways to address and correct those abuses. Freedom, rightly understood, comes not only with rights, but duties also – both to God and our fellow man.

In light of this understanding, as a matter of public policy then, the relevant questions when it comes to discrimination are these:

1) Which, if any, bases for discrimination should be prohibited by the government (and by which government)? And if any,

2) In what contexts and to what degree should those bases for discrimination be prohibited?, and

3) Since freedom is itself the ability to discriminate based on various self-determined criteria, does the claimed need for the prohibition of a particular basis of discrimination in a particular context outweigh the corresponding loss of freedom?, and

4) To what extent do our federal or state Constitutions guarantee the protection of certain freedoms so as to make the answers definitive?

But these questions are virtually never even acknowledged since they require a thoughtful and reasoned analysis, along with a recognition that these issues are not always so cut and dry as some would like you to believe. It’s high time for “progressives” to be honest about the issue of discrimination because only then can we begin to reach any common ground on how best to deal with it. Their faulty rhetoric thus far has served only to distort the real issues while resulting in a mass deception. Despite how pathetically shallow the rhetoric is, it has nevertheless continued to captivate the simple-minded. But in a free society, although freedom cannot be said to exist where not all ideas are permitted, the same freedom can only be sustained where the faulty ideas are being constantly challenged, scrutinized, and demolished.

Let’s hope more sensible minds prevail in demolishing this particular rhetorical nonsense, since the freedom of us all depends upon it.

This article was originally posted at The Family Foundation blog.

Under the “progressive” leadership of Barack Obama and his like-minded “social justice” warriors throughout all levels of government, we have entered an era of lawlessness unprecedented in American history. This is no more apparent than in Alabama where Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court has been unlawfully removed from the bench at the hands of liberal activists on Alabama’s Court of the Judiciary (COJ).

The case is under appeal.

This miscarriage of justice was carried out at the behest of the left-wing extremist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an anti-Christian activist organization that seeks to undermine, if not extinguish altogether, the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

To add insult to injury, Judge Moore’s law clerks were likewise terminated without warning or explanation late last week. The Chief quickly issued a statement in response: “My appeal is still pending but Justice Stuart [interim chief] is acting like she has already decided the appeal against me. I have asked Justices Stuart, Bolin, Main and Shaw to be recused from hearing my case. Justice Stuart’s action against me personally and the subsequent firing of the staff attorneys I hired is troublesome and such actions prejudge the case. Instead of acting as though my appeal has already been decided, I call upon these justices to recuse. None of them should have any role in appointing successor justices to hear my appeal.”

Chief Justice Moore further remarked, “I have been targeted for my belief in marriage, a belief shared by the majority of Americans. No one can point to any illegal, unlawful or unethical aspect of my four-page Administrative Order. That order was a status report on the case. A justice should not be removed from office because of a political agenda.”

The facts of the case are clear and beyond dispute. Chief Justice Moore was arbitrarily removed from the bench for a “2016 Administrative Order [that] was merely a status report of a pending case before the Alabama Supreme Court,” notes Mat Staver, chairman and founder of Liberty Counsel. “The order did not change the status quo. It did not create any new obligation or duty. To suspend Chief Justice Moore for the duration of his term is a miscarriage of justice and we will appeal this case to the Alabama Supreme Court. This case is far from over,” he added.

On September, 30 the COJ issued a decision on the trumped-up charges against Chief Moore. The Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) requested that he be removed from the bench. Under the COJ rules, removal requires a unanimous 9-0 vote by the members of the COJ, which is made up of judges, a lawyer and laypeople. Absent a 9-0 unanimous vote, the COJ cannot remove a judge from the bench. But, in an unbelievable violation of the law, the COJ suspended without pay Chief Justice Moore for the remainder of his term, which runs through January 2019. When his term expires, he will be ineligible to run for election as judge again because of his age. So the suspension until the end of his term is a de facto removal from the bench. This is both an unethical and illegal circumvention of the letter of the law.

“To suspend Chief Justice Moore for the rest of his term is the same as removal. The COJ lacked the unanimous votes to remove the Chief, so the majority instead chose to ignore the law and the rules,” concludes Staver.

The COJ’s disgraceful actions have resulted in a tremendous backlash among both the majority of Alabama voters, as well as legislators on both sides of the aisle. This has put both the SPLC and the COJ on the defensive. In a rambling screed written for Al.com, SPLC president Richard Cohen betrays his personal vendetta against Chief Justice Moore, his lack of knowledge about the U.S. Constitution and the laws of Alabama, as well as an astounding level of anti-Christian bigotry.

“Moore attempted to put his personal religious beliefs above the rule of law,” writes Cohen. “The United States has always been defined by a fundamental belief in the rule of law,” he adds, evidently oblivious to the jaw-dropping level of irony and hypocrisy found within his words.

Cohen goes on to slander Chief Moore, smearing him as “intoxicated with his own self-righteousness” and maligning him as having “disgraced his office.”

In fact, Cohen gets only one thing right, noting: “The court heard the case against Moore and rendered a decision it likely knew would be deeply unpopular across the state.”

Indeed, it’s little wonder the COJ knew its decision would be deeply unpopular. Most politically-motivated hit jobs are. Especially when they’re illegal.

Still, the blowback has begun and legislators are moving to undo the damage to the rule of law committed by the SPLC and its COJ cohorts. “This group of individuals are not accountable to the voters of Alabama,” observed Alabama GOP Chairman Terry Lathan in a statement. “Their charge as a body is to address and make decisions on corruption cases involving judges in Alabama. At no time has this case been about corruption,” he added.

“Judge Moore was elected, twice, by the citizens of our state. In light of this, two groups who are unaccountable to the voters have overstepped boundaries in suspending a statewide elected judge. On May 21, 2016, the Alabama Republican Party passed a resolution strongly opposing the removal of Chief Justice Moore.”

“On August 27, 2016, the Alabama Republican Party passed a resolution calling for the Alabama executive, legislative and judicial branches of government to enact and implement a law for the election of all members of the Judicial Inquiry Commission by vote of the people of Alabama.”

“We stand by our resolution of support for Judge Moore and our resolution to call for a vote of the people regarding the election of all members to the Judicial Inquiry Commission,” concluded Lathan.

With both potential legislation and the appeal pending, the Roy Moore saga continues. Will the rule of law be reestablished in Alabama, or will politically-motivated witch hunts such as this represent the future in the heart of Dixie?

If Alabama voters have any say, I expect to see justice done and this corrupt decision reversed.

Some of our best voices in the nation are being silenced when it comes to discussing the critical issues facing the country. It just so happens that every Sunday you can hear one of these voices speaking from the pulpit about salvation and the Bible and Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, too often those preachers fear wading onto ground that is deemed “political.”

Here’s the problem, though. These days almost everything is being made into a political issue – and that’s being done on purpose by those that wish to see an ever-growing government and an ever-shrinking private sector. When everything is politics, then issues like life, marriage, adoption, euthanasia (the list goes on and on) become off limits for discussion inside the church.

It wasn’t always this way in America. From the founding of the country, the “Black Robed Regiment” set the standard for Christian men and women to speak forcefully about the issues of the day.

Then in 1954, the IRS code was amended by then U.S. Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson (D-TX) to silence his opponents during his reelection campaign.  The “Johnson Amendment” — as it is known — “absolutely prohibits” 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups from “directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office” or making “contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position.”

During the decades since, that Johnson Amendment has been used to intimidate pastors from discussing any moral issue that has now become “political.” For fear of losing their non-profit status, church leaders choose to vacate the public square when it comes to key matters of right and wrong. We have seen the consequences of that silence in our culture over the course of these many decades.

In recent months there has been serious public discussion about repealing the “Johnson Amendment,” and initial steps are already being taken with the introduction of legislation to “amend” the amendment. This bill, introduced by U.S. House of Representatives Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Jody Hice (R-GA), is called the Free Speech Fairness Act (H.R. 6195).

This new legislation would restrict enforcement of the Johnson Amendment against churches and other non-profit groups for whom the law was never intended. You can find more information about that legislation by clicking here and here, as well as a great deal more information on the Johnson Amendment here.

So many moral issues in the political arena must be addressed by church leaders inside the church – and not just by Christians outside the church. We must reclaim our God-given First Amendment right of free speech. It doesn’t just belong to those on one side of the debate.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative to ask him/her to support or even co-sponsor this legislation. Speak up for free speech by telling them you want the Johnson Amendment repealed. Tell them they can start the process by cosponsoring H.R. 6195, the Free Speech Fairness Act.

Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. We are distributing the IFI Voter Guide to hundreds of churches, civic groups and tea party organizations. Will you financially support our endeavor to educate Illinois voters and promote Judeo-Christian values?  Donate today.

Written by Erik W. Stanely

Late last month, U.S. Representatives Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Jody Hice (R-GA) introduced a bill in the U.S. House called the Free Speech Fairness Act (H.R. 6195). The bill is aimed at fixing the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 addition to the tax code that gives the IRS the ability to censor the speech of pastors, churches, and other nonprofit entities on issues related to candidates and elections. Here are five things you need to know about the bill:

1.  The bill fixes but does not repeal the Johnson Amendment.

The bill does not repeal the Johnson Amendment. Instead, it amends the law to allow for speech that is made “in the ordinary course of the organization’s regular and customary activities.” This means that, as you carry out the mission of your church, you would have the right to speak freely on all matters of life, including candidates and elections, and would not have to fear IRS censorship or punishment for simply exercising your right to free speech and freedom of religion. Put simply, the bill inserts a “relief valve” for speech into the Johnson Amendment and gets the IRS out of the business of policing the speech of America’s pastors and churches.

2.  The bill applies to all 501(c)(3) entities, not just churches.

The bill is not just limited to churches but applies to all entities organized and operating under section 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code. It is not just churches and pastors who suffer under the draconian regulations and penalties associated with the Johnson Amendment—it applies to all 501(c)(3) organizations. Because this is true, the fix should also apply to all 501(c)(3) organizations. The IRS never should have been put in the position of policing the speech of nonprofit entities and this bill will remove that power from the IRS—a governmental agency that has been proven to abuse this type of power in the past and so should not be entrusted with it.

3.  The bill does not turn churches and charities into political action committees.

The bill is specifically crafted to maintain the prohibition against 501(c)(3) organizations contributing money to candidates or campaigns. The bill only allows for speech in the “ordinary course of the organization’s regular and customary activities” so long as the organization does not incur “more than de minimis incremental expenses” for the speech.  Put simply, this means that speech about candidates and election can be added to whatever your organization is already doing as long as it does not cost the organization more than a de minimis (“an insignificant”) additional cost. The bill does not allow for campaign contributions to candidates or parties.

4.  The bill is constitutionally sound.

The bill removes a very unconstitutional restriction on speech that has existed for over 60 years. By applying it to all 501(c)(3) organizations, U.S. Reps. Scalice and Hice have introduced a constitutionally sound bill that provides relief to exempt organizations and removes the IRS from the speech police business.

5.  The bill is the first step in getting Congress to fix what it created in 1954.

The introduction of the bill is the first step toward fixing the unconstitutional Johnson Amendment. There are many more steps to the legislative process before the bill can become law and provide the relief America’s pastors and churches are seeking.  Nevertheless, the introduction of this bill is an encouraging sign.

There’s been a lot of talk about the Johnson Amendment this election cycle, shining some light on what has been a veil of silence over churches and non-profits for over 60 years. The more people learn the facts about this unconstitutional law, the more they understand why a fix like the Free Speech Fairness Act is needed to protect the constitutional freedoms of everyone—including pastors and churches.

Get your FREE guide to understanding the Johnson Amendment and how to navigate “political” issues this year here.

This article was originally posted at the ADF blog.

Written by Josh Hetzler

In the nation birthed out of a determined quest for religious freedom, it is impossible today not to notice how faith-based Americans are increasingly marginalized, if not openly opposed, by a growing strain of anti-religious sentiment. In particular, it is Bible-believing Christians whose faith is relentlessly being pushed out of every part of public life. For genuine believers within a rapidly changing culture, it is becoming clear that they stand much to lose by their continued obedience to the God they serve.

The enduring challenge for America is to maintain a society within which people of diverse beliefs can live out their convictions freely, yet harmoniously. A freedom that is wrought with strife and void of harmony is hardly a freedom worth having. On the other hand, societal harmony without freedom is the very definition of tyranny. Ultimately, America must have both at once, or none at all.

Today, our nation is experiencing a decrease in cultural harmony because our differing belief systems continue to align in more direct conflict with one another. In this case, the Christian worldview stands in direct conflict with the unholy trinity of moral relativism, secular humanism, and state-imposed socialism (we’ll call the faithful adherents of this religion “secularists”). Their goals are completely at odds.

The secularists’ solution to this conflict is [to attempt] to eliminate all opposing viewpoints (so far, mostly Christians). Insistence on conformity to a particular set of secular beliefs, ironically championed in the name of “diversity”, becomes for them the pathway to societal harmony. But it comes at the expense of religious freedom. In such terrain, as one state’s Supreme Court Justice recently put it, people of faith “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. … [But] it is the price of citizenship” in this new America.

But herein enters the problem. Inasmuch as the Christian’s faith in Jesus Christ transforms his life and becomes his deepest identity, the Christian can no more cast off his faith than he can cast off his own skin. More than a mere description of the things he does, his faith reflects the very essence of his being. Therefore, in failing to accept, condone, applaud, endorse, participate in, celebrate, or worship something which violates the Christian’s foremost loyalty to God, it is not merely that he will not do it; rather, it is that he cannot do it.

It is important for the secularist to understand that a Christian’s refusal to violate his conscience is not so much a matter of volition, whereby he responds with defiance. It is a matter of capacity, in that he lacks the ability carry it out. It is not in him to do, because it is inconsistent with his very nature – the new nature that God has given him through the Holy Spirit now dwelling within him. (See Galatians 2:20)

So when a Christian declines to take part in celebrating a same-sex commitment ceremony by lending her artistic expressions (in the form of a specialized cake, photography, floral arrangements, etc.) to further that celebration, it is because shecannot do it while being faithful to God – her chief aim.

Or when a Christian refuses to treat a biological man as if he were a woman for the purposes of providing certain public accommodations or in the use of certain pronouns, it is because he senses that to do so would be to deny God’s truth and dishonor God’s sacred design in creating male and female – and that is something he cannot do.

It is not ultimately a matter of what he wants. It is a matter of who he is in Christ.

Here is what the secularists need to recognize as they make every attempt to compel Christians into absolute conformity with their beliefs: Demanding that a person do a thing for which they lack the capacity, and then punishing them when they fail to do it, is pure abject cruelty. It would be like ordering a financial investor to perform open heart surgery on the spot, and then suing him for malpractice when the patient doesn’t survive. It’s unthinkable and unconscionable because the investor lacks the capacity to carry it out. It was a futile effort from the start. No one would demand such a thing except out of great cruelty, extreme desperation, or bona fide insanity.

Nevertheless, these kinds of demands on Bible-believing Christ followers will likely only increase as more conflicts inevitably rise to the surface. Christians, meanwhile, can look to some good biblical examples for how to respond in these situations.

One of them occurs in the book of Acts chapter 4. Peter and John were confronted by the civil authorities because they were preaching about Jesus, and many of the people were believing their message by faith. The authorities felt threatened by the apostles because their message about Jesus was disrupting the conformity of beliefs which they sought so hard to maintain. Over and above affirming what was true, their desire was for the control of ideas.

“17 But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” 18 So they called [Peter and John] and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But [they] answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

From this story, we get a few important takeaways. First, the followers of Jesus continued to recognize the God-given position of authority of the civil servants. Notice the first part of their response wherein they exhort the authorities: “you must judge”. In the midst of their conflict, they did not try to deny the right of the authorities to judge the rightness of their conduct. In this way, they honored both God and the civil authority, while exemplifying good citizenship.

Secondly, the followers of Jesus made it absolutely clear, at least by inference, that God’s commands took precedence over the civil authorities when the two were in conflict. It was essentially rhetorical to suggest to a group of Jewish priests that they had to decide whose word should win – theirs or God’s. They got the point.

Finally, when the followers of Jesus were commanded to do something that would violate their commitment to God, they made it clear that they “cannot” comply. It was simply not within them to keep silent about Jesus. It had nothing to do with defiance towards the civil authorities. It had everything to do with obedience to God.

And so it is also with followers of Christ in 21st century America. Secularists, take note.

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

The effort is on two fronts. Last Sunday was Alliance Defending Freedom’s annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday in which pastors are encouraged to endorse candidates and state their opinion on social issues, including legislation dealing with them.

At issue is the Johnson Amendment, which changed the tax code in 1954 to prohibit political talk from tax-exempt organizations, including churches.

The change was pushed by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson, when a non-profit group was vocally opposing his re-election in Texas.

In an effort to repeal the Johnson Amendment, U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) has introduced the P.R.E.A.C.H. Act.

“This is to protect institutions of faith, preachers included, when they speak out and say things that have to do with politics,” the congressman explains. “They don’t want the IRS to come in and intimidate or threaten them or say, We’re going to take away your tax exempt status.”

Since it’s an election season, Lamborn suggests people can make it an issue by contacting their elected representatives in Washington to urge them to sign on to the bill.

At present, the congressman claims, everyone in America has constitutionally protected freedom of speech, except for pastors and other religious leaders.

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

Over the past few years Hoosiers have witnessed a rather obvious groveling of political leaders at state and local levels who bend over backwards to please high tech companies in meeting their political demands.  One only need to remember the “RFRA fix” that was rushed through the Indiana state legislature at lightening speed.  Many politicians and groups like the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce now claim that embracing a radical sexual agenda is going to create jobs or grow a local economy . . . even if it comes at the expense of religious liberty.

There is a remarkable new study that should put this myth into a better perspective.  An analysis from Georgetown University finds that the economic value of religion in American society is bigger than any of the top 10 tech companies combined revenue, including Amazon, Apple and Google.

The study, entitled The Socioeconomic Contributions of Religion to American Society: An Empirical Analysis, finds that religious faith accounts for up to a jaw dropping $4.8 TRILLION in economic value to the United States.

The study breaks down its findings into three estimates of economic value.  The first, and lowest, estimate only takes into account the revenues of faith-based organizations, which are around $378 billion annually.   The second, middle, estimate includes the fair market value of the goods and services that religious organizations and its members provide, boosting religion’s economic impact up to $1.2 trillion.  The third, and highest $4.8 trillion figure includes the household incomes of religiously affiliated Americans.

Casting aside the value of faith in order to embrace politically correct sexual anarchies that are opposed by every major world religion’s teachings seems shortsighted and politically foolish.  Still, we have seen numerous Indiana city councilors and mayors do just that with so-called “non-discrimination” ordinances since the RFRA fix.

The authors make another point tied to the decline in religion and its cost.  They write:

“Understanding the socio-economic value of religion to American society is especially important in the present era characterized by disaffiliation from organized religion . . . “Given the division of opinion on religion’s contribution to American society, this present study seeks to shed light on the topic by making an estimate of religion’s socio-economic value to society. Indeed, we should know if the decline in religion is likely to have negative economic consequences.”

The study reminds readers of the massive economic footprint of faith upon America.  It also seems to confirm that attacking religion and religious freedom has no economic benefit.   Wanting people to keep their faith within the walls of their home or church, as the mayor of Carmel, Indiana suggested, could have an adverse economic impact over time.

If people of faith ever flex their economic muscles like tech companies do, the idea of a $50,000 fine against Christians who believe in natural marriage would never even be proposed by politicians, let alone passed unanimously, as happened in Columbus, Indiana.

Introduction

Let us talk for a moment about the way appeasement usually goes, and begin by citing Churchill in his trenchant response to Chamberlain. “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

Appeasement Shows Up Everywhere

The emotional makeup of the appeaser is consistent, regardless of venue. It might be a hapless parent, saying that his toddler is “losing self-control” when what is actually happening is that the toddler is showing absolute mastery of the situation, is exercising total control, and has decided to do the whole thing again tomorrow. It might happen when a feckless Secretary of State flies around the whole telling troublesome rogue states that he is going to count to ten. “Nine and a half . . . nine and three quarters . . .”

And of course, the same mentality, the mentality of the appeaser is on full display in our culture wars. A recent example was the decision of the NCAA to pull certain games out of North Carolina in order to register their disapproval of how North Carolina had decided to protect little girls from bona fide creepers in public rest rooms. Thus it has come to pass that the advocates of “safe spaces” on college campuses—defined as spaces sufficiently insulated from opinions that are contrary to their own—are strident opponents of actual safe spaces for girls who will run the risk of being molested and/or filmed by some tranny named Bruno. Rest rooms, as you may recall, don’t have surveillance cameras in them, and so when North Carolina acted like a commonwealth full of people with common sense and said that folks needed to use the kind of bathroom that matched their sex on their birth certificate, the enlightened ones among us—no other phrase will do—went ape shit.

Gnats and Camels

The really offensive thing in all this, some will say, is not that a precious little girl in North Carolina will have her innocence violated, but rather that some writer in North Idaho is still allowed to use words like “tranny” and “Bruno.” We suggest that heavy fines are in order. And certain furrowed-brow evangelicals will chime in with their observation that we need to make some kind of communitarian peace with abortion, sodomy, and executive tyranny, but that we draw the line at uncouth references to primate fecal matter.

Back to North Carolina

Among those posturing, preening, flexing their inclusive biceps, and otherwise virtue signaling were the drama queens of the NCAA. They pulled some games out of North Carolina to show how committed to Diversity (all rise!) they are. They are way committed to Diversity. They showed us how all-in-dedicated to Diversity they were, are, and ever will be. They adopted a policy that went full-weirdo inclusion, which put them in the necessary position of having to exclude regular folks. It used to be that social engineers would justify their follies by saying that you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. We have now reached the apex of what our modern progressive thought-thinkers are now maintaining, which is that you can’t throw eggs at the sidewalk without breaking a few eggs.

So Then, Appeasement . . .

Now how do we know that we are in an appeasement situation? Those strident voices on the Left know that they are not dealing with anyone committed to Diversity in the slightest, but rather with businessmen who have PR departments that insistently tell them which way the wind is blowing. They know, in short, that they are dealing with appeasement monkeys. And that is why they did not say “Good job, NCAA! Way to be decent and progressive human beings!”

No, no, not at all. They actually ratcheted everything up to the next level. Now that you have granted all of our premises by boycotting North Carolina, we will immediately demand the expulsion of BYU from the NCAA. And, granting the premises, which you are just now granted, this is absolutely correct. Here is a fine sample of this kind of thinking.

The NCAA are craven appeasers, not foot soldiers of the Left. They are the Vichy government, not the Nazis. They are Churchill’s appeasers, feeding the crocodile with others, hoping to be the last one eaten. It is a good thing they all went into sports during high school and college. I hear that sports build character.

Out in Nebuchadnezzar’s Pasture

But of course, we do not grant the premises. Any set of premises that winds up with serious-looking people putting tampons in the men’s room is a set of premises that ought to be examined just a bit more closely. This is where we have gotten, people. Half a century of tax-payer funded sex-ed classes for millions of students, costing many millions of dollars, and the alumni of these sex-ed classes now occupy many positions of influence, and they have crowned their distinguished course of study by putting tampons in the men’s rooms. But they cannot linger for very long—they are all off to a seminar which will lambast conservatives for being “anti-science.”

Like I said, if you grant the lunatic premises then you will be able, with little effort, to land yourself in a lunatic conclusion. But why do that? Why go along with it all? Why fight a rearguard action against it? Why not face facts, and admit that our once great civilization has officially gotten to the point that Nebuchadnezzar reached when he assumed the role of a moo-cow. Not only so, but we have reached that point for precisely the same reasons. We were full of the pride of life, and in hubris we marveled at this great secular Babylon which we had built. And so the God of Heaven sent out a decree from the watchers, and caused us to put tampons in the men’s rooms. We are the mighty ones, we are lords of the earth. We think we shall sit under this tree and watch our fingernails grow.

Hamster Babies

But bring this down to our evangelical leaders who have that same appeasement streak down in their souls. They have the backbone of a chocolate eclair. They have the sturdy ribs of a very large recently-shelled oyster. They have the fighting spirit of a Tupperware bowl full of hamster babies.

How can you tell if someone is an evangelical appeaser? It is very simple. They will take issue with what follows. We need to start saying things something like the following to the world:

“Everything you know about discrimination is wrong.” “All you have been taught about equality is incoherent.” “You don’t know what human rights are.” “The only problem with social justice warriors is that they don’t know what society is, what justice is, or what war is like.” “The 1964 Civil Rights Act was a masterful plan if you are a Greek, and an unmitigated disaster if you are a Trojan.”

We are up against people who oppose genital mutilation of young children in Yemen but support it whole-heartedly in San Francisco. We are up against progressives who championed Title IX foolishness for a generation, but who then suddenly changed their minds, and destroyed women’s sports in just a matter of months. I point this out simply to note that we are not up against thinkers. But they still get what they want because of who they are up against.

Some of us like it hot, others like it cold. Others like it in the pot.

Appeasement porridge hot,

Appeasement porridge cold,

Appeasement porridge in the pot

Nine days old.

Anyone who thinks that this trajectory we are on can end without overt persecution of the believing church in North America is living in a dream land. I suggest another strategy, and another set of generals. And during the coming troubles, we need to be led by churchills, not chamberlains.

Article originally published at DougWils.com.

In 1929, Josef Stalin signed a law that dealt a devastating blow to religious freedom in Russia. For most of a century, Russian Christians suffered enormous persecutions for their faith. Some estimates suggest that as many as 20,000,000 Christians may have been martyred in prison camps in the 20^th century for holding to their faith. One historian stated that over 85,000 Russian Orthodox Priests were shot in 1937 alone.

Communism, despite its slogans of equality and social utopia, has never come through on its promises. Stalin’s draconian measures were reaffirmed by Leonid Brezhnev’s updated legislation in 1975. A remnant of faithful underground churches remained active, but experienced severe opposition and punishment.

On November 9, 1989, the unbelievable happened. Two years after Ronald Reagan’s famous, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” speech, the Berlin Wall, separating East and West Germany came down. A new policy of reform and religious liberty was proclaimed in the Soviet Union. And indeed, changes began to happen.

In October of 1990, President Mikhail Gorbachev and RSFSR’s Boris Yeltsin (then chairman of the Russian parliament or Supreme Soviet), both introduced new legislation allowing for an opening of religious freedom and liberty of conscience.

Soon, Christian ministries from the West poured into Russia with evangelism and Christian discipleship tools. We must not be deceived, however, into thinking that everything was rosy. During the Clinton administration, a mass immigration occurred as Christians from Russia poured into the United States seeking asylum for religious persecution.

The KGB was still deeply entrenched in positions of power in Russia. They were just subtler and covert. But nonetheless, an unprecedented access to religious materials and Western media became available, and it seemed the door of communism would never close again on the former USSR.

The Noose is Tightened Again

In 1997, a new law was passed governing religion in Russia, but it gave no definition or description of how religious expression and promotion could be administered. Some local regions had laws restricting open expression, but most areas have been relatively open and unharassed.

However, on July 6, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a controversial anti-terrorism law that infringes on many human rights, including religious freedom. It restricts proselytizing of religion in Russia, and imposes heavy fines for violators. The new law applies to all religious groups except for the Russian Orthodox Church (which many religious groups claim has been under the thumb of the Russian government for many decades).

Under the new law, any promotion of Christian faith, outside of an officially recognized church building, would be considered subversive, and would be faced with a fine of up to $780 for an individual, or $15,000 for an organization. It has been reported that this may apply even to evangelizing in homes or over the internet. Foreign missionaries who violate the ordinance would be deported. According to Christianity Today, “The ‘Yarovaya package,’ requires missionaries to have permits, makes house churches illegal,” among other restrictions.

Placing restrictions on religion by means of amendments to a terrorism bill was a clever move on Putin’s part. Who would want to be seen as standing up for terrorism? And, I’m sure it has been argued, religion, after all, has been the driving force between much of global terrorism. Although this measure has been condemned by religious leaders around the world, it is almost certain that Putin and his henchmen will remain deaf to their concerns.

Coming to America?

For the past half century there has been, in America, an increasing push to privatize religion. The courts have reaffirmed the desires of the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, American Atheists, and others, to see all vestiges of public expressions of faith eradicated. What you want to believe in your own personal little heart about God, or the tooth fairy, or whatever you want to call Him or it, is between you and your god. But don’t bring it into the public square.

Systematically, Bible distribution in schools, public displays of the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes on public property, and public prayers in Jesus’ name are all being removed by a left-leaning, black-robed oligarchy.

The New Tolerance

It goes beyond mere privatization, however. Now, there is even a desire to move into the realm of regulating moral conscience. Atheist leader, Richard Dawkins, has suggested that it is child abuse to teach your children to believe the tenets of Christianity as being objectively true.

Many evangelical leaders in America have predicted the coming of religious persecution in America. In his 2014 inauguration speech as President of the National Religious Broadcaster’s convention, Jerry Johnson predicted a move against freedom of speech in Christian broadcasting, on the basis of supposed, “Hate Speech” legislation.

At a national homeschooling leadership conference in Chicago in 2010, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, former pastor of the historic Moody Church in Chicago told the audience they should encourage Christian homeschooling parents they serve to teach their children about the history of religious persecution as a part of their education. Dr. Lutzer has authored a book entitled “When a Nation Forgets God: 7 Lessons We Must Learn from Nazi Germany.” Author and radio host Eric Metaxas describes the book this way: “It clearly and powerfully explains what the parallels are between Germany’s fall from grace and the beginning of our own fall.”

Christian leaders like Dr. Albert Mohler, Russell Moore and others, and even former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scailia have suggested the possible threat to religious liberty posed by the SCOTUS’ decision on same-sex marriage. What happens if a Christian college or seminary is required by law to allow same-sex dating on campus?

We’ve already seen nationally televised court cases regarding Christians who have refused to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, or Christian county clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The fact is, it is not enough for atheists, homosexuals, socialists and cultural leftists to have their own freedom and equality to believe whatever they believe (a freedom which most Christians fully support). No, they want to ensure that Christians are not permitted to live out their own faith and convictions without retribution. This is the legacy of the New Tolerance movement. The doors of religious liberty are closing once again in Russia, after a brief twenty-six year limited window. Are the doors of our four-hundred year window of liberty closing? Frankly, that answer will be determined by what this generation of Christians in America does in the next ten years.

Illinois’ ban on sexual identity counseling is facing a legal challenge from pastors who fear they could be charged with consumer fraud if they provide pastoral counseling to young people who want to turn away from same-sex attraction.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!  She not only distinguished herself by forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House, but as a courageous and outspoken pro-life leader, as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…

As a result of the passage of the deceptively named “Youth Mental Health Protection Act,” the law firm of Mauck & Baker is today filing a federal lawsuit against the state of Illinois on behalf of a group of Illinois pastors alleging that the Act “unconstitutionally restricts a young person’s right to make personal choices regarding his or her own choice of sexual identity, as well as the pastors’ right to free speech and the exercise of religion.” The suit seeks “a Declaratory Judgment from the court stating that the law should not apply to pastoral counseling.”

Read the Mauck & Baker federal complaint HERE.

The Act, commonly called the “conversion therapy ban” but more properly called the anti-autonomy Act or the anti-identity-choice Act, prohibits professional mental health providers from helping minors who desire counseling for unwanted, unchosen homoerotic attraction. So, while leftists believe minors should be able to access medical help in a futile quest to reject their unwanted sex, these same leftists pass laws prohibiting minors from accessing help in constructing an identity that doesn’t include the affirmation of unwanted homoerotic feelings.

The anti-autonomy Act includes a host of other problems including the following:

• The Act prohibits “any practices or treatments that seek to….reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings towards individuals of the same sex.” The hubris of homosexual activists and liberal lawmakers knows no bounds. They passed a law to prohibit teenagers from pursuing ways of reducing unwanted homoerotic feelings.

• The Act makes no distinction between coercive aversion therapies and talk therapies.

• It makes no distinction between involuntary counseling and voluntary counseling desired by minors.

• It fails to address whether, for example, a 14-year-old who experiences homoerotic feelings and admits to having been sexually molested would be allowed to explore the connection between sexual molestation and homoerotic feelings with a mental health provider?

• The Act states that “No person or entity may, in the conduct of any trade or commerce use or employ any…conversion therapy services in a manner that represents homosexuality as a…” In other words, it is now illegal to present homosexuality truthfully.

• The Act presumes without evidence that all counseling efforts to help minors who reject their unwanted, unchosen “sexual orientation” are damaging. It is indefensible to ban counseling efforts for which there is no conclusive evidence of harm.

• The Act applies to licensed psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, professional counselors and clinical professional counselors, as well as anyone assisting any licensed professionals.

It is encouraging to see pastors take a public stand for unpopular biblical truths and against oppressive, politically driven laws that violate constitutionally protected liberty. We see such courage among church leaders too seldom.

Click HERE to read more.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…

Governor Bruce Rauner has signed a law which forces pro-life medical professionals to promote abortion. In response, pregnancy centers have filed a lawsuit against the governor and federal legislation is now being debated in Congress.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…