For the past two decades, America’s slide down the slippery slope of atheist-flavored secular humanism has accelerated at breakneck speed.

Once upon a time Dr. Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop were scorned and ridiculed when they suggested such a “slippery slope” existed in terms of the devaluing of human life. In retrospect, Schaeffer and Koop were radically prescient in their predictions.

Almost daily we are assailed with ever more cases of individual Americans strong-armed to violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs. In fact, the only belief system afforded respect by the Progressives (Socialists) is the secular, utilitarian and humanistic worldview.

Since the days of Dewey and Wilson, Progressives have schemed and plotted and maneuvered, relentless in pursuit of the goal: a secular utopia administrated by so-called “enlightened elitists.”

Add to the mix, the eugenicist depravity of Margaret Sanger, founder of  “the American Birth Control League, which would eventually become Planned Parenthood,” and the final concoction is a godless set of mores where humans are just another entity in the animal kingdom.

I wrote of Sanger in the 2014 article, Margaret Sanger’s Dream Come True: Eugenics by Abortion:

And like the modern day organization, cloaking its true agenda in palatable verbiage such as “family planning” and “choice,” Margaret’s goal was far more evil than the respectable facade she presented.

Sanger waged a crusade for legal and safe contraceptives, and for legal and safe abortions. The Left and Planned Parenthood would have you believe she was a paragon, an angel of mercy for women in desperate need.

. . .

The real Margaret Sanger espoused sinister motives for advancing birth control and abortion: she fully endorsed eugenics for the betterment of race and society.

Sanger was a Darwinist who embraced a utilitarian view of human life, and proposed to rid our nation of the criminal element and “inferior races” through abortion and breeding programs.

Think of this: Roe v. Wade pitted the right of privacy of the woman against the right to LIFE of her unborn child, and the Burger court ruled in favor of privacy.

I noted in my 2014 post, Roe v. Wade: The Shameful History of an Egregious SCOTUS Decision:

Justice Byron White wrote a stern dissent:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment.

The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.

The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand.

Now, 43 years and 57 million slaughtered babies later, our nation suffers under the corporate burden of guilt and the predictable loss of public virtue.

And somehow this wrongly decided “right to privacy” ruling, this right to terminate the life of the unborn for all or any reason, with no support whatsoever in our U.S. Constitution, supersedes all other rights and worldviews. So much so that taxpayers, in spite of their biblical objections and abhorrence of this infanticide, are forced to pay for abortions and abortifacients.

But even worse, those who object and refuse to take part in abortions, abortion referrals, or abortifacient prescribing, are punished.

A recent case in Rockford, Illinois, Mendoza v. Martell, is illustrative of the tyranny of the pro-abortion movement and its leaders.

Sandra Mendoza, a Rockford nurse and devout, pro-life Catholic, informed Public Health Administrator “Dr. Sandra Martell, of her conscientious objection to participating in any way in abortions, or the distribution of abortifacients.” Nurse Mendoza quickly discovered that the right to abortion trumps her First Amendment-guaranteed religious liberty:

Dr. Martell gave Ms. Mendoza two weeks to either quit or accept a demotion to a temporary job as a food inspector. Mendoza refused the demotion and was forced to resign in July 2015.

The suit seeks damages under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which prohibits public officials from discriminating against a person in any manner because of their conscientious refusal to participate in any way in the provision of abortions.

Once again, the U.S. Constitution is being circumvented to bolster this hell-bent “right to privacy.”

The compelling argument in favor of Sandra Mendoza:

Mendoza’s attorney, Noel Sterett, a partner at Mauck & Baker, LLC, in Chicago, says, “Ms. Mendoza has spent her life serving children and protecting life. People disagree on whether abortions end human lives, but I’d hope we can all agree that pro-life doctors and nurses should not be forced out of employment on account of their faith or commitment to protecting life.”

Nurse Mendoza is to be commended for her pro-life conviction, even in the face of job loss. But the fact is, no American should ever have to face the loss of their livelihood because of their biblical convictions. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion (NOT worship, as the Left would try to assert), an inalienable right which cannot be absconded by government.

However, Illinoisans are now seeing an effort to strengthen the tyranny of the abortion lobby via Senate Bill 1564:

…lawmakers in the General Assembly passed SB 1564 in an effort to expand abortion services in Illinois. This legislation would force medical professionals and many pregnancy care workers to violate their conscience by forcing them to refer patients for medical procedures they find morally objectionable such as abortion, sterilization and certain end-of-life care.

People of faith in Illinois, people of biblical worldviews, must not relent; they must vote and vote in record numbers to send this bill directly to the paper shredder.

The Left has brought us to this slippery slope of dehumanizing people in the womb, people at the end of life, and people in-between birth and natural death. The journey toward this broad road to destruction was approached stealthily, circuitously.

The time has come for conservatives, for Believers, to stop the descent down the slippery slope predicted by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop.

The Bible is clear: we are told to choose life. The U.S. Constitution is clear: the First Amendment, codifies our God-given religious liberty and freedom of speech.  The Illinois State Constitution is clear: Article 3 forever guarantees the free exercise of religion and religious opinions.

Now it’s time to stand on that truth, one bill, one case, at a time, and never relent in OUR pursuit of what IS intrinsically, morally right.

Take ACTION: Click HERE and ask Governor Rauner to uphold conscience rights for Illinois medical personnel.  Urge him to veto this ominous proposal. No American should be forced by the government to violate his or her deeply held convictions.

Please also call Governor Rauner’s office at:

(217) 782-0244 — Springfield
(312) 814-2121 — Chicago

Can you support our work with
a tax-deductible donation?

A pro-life nurse is out of a job because of her religious beliefs, and now a law designed to protect her and others from discrimination is in peril. Governor Bruce Rauner could soon decide the fate of Illinois’ Healthcare Right of Conscience Act.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to Illinois Governor Rauner, urging him to uphold religious freedom and conscience rights for medical personnel in Illinois.  Ask him to veto SB 1564 and the tyranny it represents.

After you send an email, please also call the Governor’s office at (217) 782-0244 or (312) 814-2121. Once you’ve done this, please pray that Gov. Rauner and his staff will understand how coercive and unjust this legislation is.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

Written by Teri Paulson

There is a scene in the movie 1984  in which Winston is reminded of this statement that he wrote in his diary: “Freedom is the freedom to say 2 + 2 = 4.” An updated version might say, “Freedom is the freedom to call a man a man and a woman a woman.”

There’s a sense in which we surrendered this battle a long time ago when we quietly and foolishly capitulated to the expulsion of God from government and public policy. It seemed so harmless then.

But government recognition of God is the lynchpin of freedom. Once a government stops recognizing God as an authority over itself it is only a matter of time before it stops acknowledging the existence of any morality external to itself that is binding upon its actions. Unrestrained by God and his moral law, government officials are free to make up the rules as they go along. Stated simply, government without God becomes God. Citizens get whatever liberties the people who happen to be in power at the time decide to give them. Welcome to America in the 21st century.

Christian business-owners are forced to participate in homosexual “weddings” or risk losing their livelihood. Laws are passed and edicts issued to force us to pretend that men are women and women are men. If Gov. Bruce Rauner signs SB 1564 into law pro-life doctors and nurses will be forced to discuss the “benefits of abortion” with their patients. Freedom of conscience and the right to speak and live in obedience to truth is on the verge of obliteration. Will anyone miss it when it’s gone?

I’m not sure they will.

We’re about to lose these rights in part because we haven’t been exercising them. Ironically, the problem is also the solution. God’s truth in the public square is still what is desperately needed  whether it staves off national disaster or not. Unfortunately, what could be a shining moment for the church is looking more and more like a non-event. Where are the letters to the editor from local church leaders? Where are the pastors speaking out at local school board and civic meetings? Where are the sermons preparing us for the persecution that’s all but inevitable? What’s the plan, oh Mighty Men of God?

My greatest fear is that the plan is to do nothing, say nothing, stand for nothing. Our biggest failing is not intolerance. It’s indifference. Are we our brothers’ keepers or not? Cain thought that was a throwaway question. Do we?

Two plus two is about to equal five.  What’s the plan, oh mighty men of God?

ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to Illinois Governor Rauner, urging him to uphold religious freedom and conscience rights for medical personnel in Illinois.  Ask him to veto SB 1564 and the tyranny it represents.

After you send an email, please also call the Governor’s office at (217) 782-0244 or (312) 814-2121. Once you’ve done this, please pray that Gov. Rauner and his staff will understand how coercive and unjust this legislation is.

Teri Paulson is the Director of Women’s Discipleship New Hope Community Church, Palatine, IL

It’s time to send a message to Governor Bruce Rauner, please veto a pro-abortion bill that would violate the rights of pro-life doctors, medical personnel and pregnancy care workers.

Last week the Illinois House debated and passed SB 1564 by a vote of 61-54 — a bill that would force doctors, nurses, pharmacists to distribute information to help patients find morally objectionable medical services such as abortion, sterilization, and certain end-of-life care.  This proposal was passed by the Illinois Senate on April 22, 2015 by a vote of 34-19.

SB 1564 now heads to the office of the governor.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner to ask him to please uphold religious freedom and conscience rights for medical personnel in Illinois.  Ask him to veto SB 1564 and the tyranny it represents.

After you send an email, please also call the Governor’s office at (217) 782-0244 or (312) 814-2121.  Once you’ve done this, please pray that Gov. Rauner and his staff will understand just how coercive this legislation is.

Thank you!

My family and I recently had the opportunity to hear about the great work being done in South Sudan by a man named William Levi.  During his presentation, in which he detailed many of the projects underway in Borongole (a city of 5,000) he stated that the Christians in South Sudan are praying for Christians here in America.

My mind focused quickly on those words.  They are praying for us?!?!

Levi explained that the United States is the beacon of hope for the entire world.  In the eyes of many around the globe, the world’s well-being is, in large part, dependent on the continued well-being of the United States.  Surprisingly, Levi wasn’t primarily talking about the monetary wealth of this country.  He was referring to the long-established liberties of our nation.

His comments reinforced for me the validity and urgency of our mission and shed new light on the importance of what we are doing in the public square.  Our efforts to defend Judeo-Christian values at home in Illinois and to preserve religious liberty are not just for our benefit and our posterity.  The work we are committed to is so much greater. I think we often fail to understand how our liberty not only affects our immediate neighbors and fellow believers whom we are called to love, but the free and robust exercise of our liberties directly impacts our global neighbors and brothers and sisters in Christ all around the world.

Romans 12:2 states: “…Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…”  The advance of Christianity turned the Roman world on its head!  From a position of political impotence, early Christians made such a profound impact, not only by spreading the Gospel but by living the Gospel, that they literally upended the corrupt and perverse Roman culture that surrounded them.

Likewise, by the manner in which we live our lives, we also are charged to fulfill Jesus’ command to “disciple the nations.” (Matthew 28:19)  In essence, today’s believers are called to be world-changers, just like the first century Christians.

Viewed in light of these scriptures, our dedication to preserving liberty, specifically religious liberty, is paramount and far-reaching.  In the 21st century, Christianity is spreading and penetrating farther and deeper than ever before – in Muslim strongholds across the globe, in Africa, and throughout South Sudan – precisely because Americans have been afforded the liberties to live out the Gospel as they pursue religious training, missionary work, and humanitarian efforts at home and abroad.

Christian love and genuine concern for others compel us to exercise our right to religious liberty as we organize food pantries, provide homeless shelters, become foster parents, operate pregnancy resource centers, and reach out to those struggling with immoral sexual behaviors.

Our Constitutionally-mandated right to religious liberty is also why we encourage Christians in Illinois to take an active role in the governance of our communities, because government, like marriage and family, is an institution God created for His glory and for the well-being of mankind.

While the 2016 Presidential election season has been extremely frustrating and indicates, yet again, that we have reached a new low in our social and political culture, it’s time we face facts – the race for the White House is not as important as we tend to make it out to be.  Truth be told, believers and churches throughout America have a far greater impact on our culture than the influence of any Chief Executive who occupies the Oval Office.

Yet, regardless of the messiness of the process, the depravity of our culture, or the apathy of some Christians, those of us who are wholeheartedly dedicated to following Christ must be willing to stand firm and do our part to make a difference.  Dereliction of duty is reprehensible, even when the duty is tough.  And dereliction of duty is especially reprehensible when I recall William Levi’s statement – the Christians of South Sudan are praying for us! (And we should pray for them!)

Though our task may seem hopeless or beyond our ability, we are being lifted up before the throne of grace by the prayers of the body of Christ in South Sudan.  Praise God for the fervent prayers of these believers!  Praise God for the prayers and support of believers here in Illinois!  Praise God for the power of the Holy Spirit at work in us!

At all times and in all situations, we can faithfully accomplish whatever task the Lord sets before us because we are equipped and empowered by His word, by His Spirit, and by the prayers of His people.  When we rest in God’s sovereignty, we readily relinquish our fear of failure or need to control, and instead follow where He leads, confidently obeying and entrusting the results to Him.  May you be a blessing to those in your home, in your church, and in the public square as you live a life transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is urging New Yorkers not to eat at Chick-fil-A because owner Dan Cathy believes that homoerotic acts are not moral and has donated money to organizations that share that belief. Although Mr. Cathy has donated money to charitable organizations that espouse the view that homoerotic acts are immoral and that marriage is an intrinsically male-female union, his beliefs affect neither whom Chick-fil-A franchises hire nor whom they serve.

In de Blasio’s perverse world, people who believe homosexual acts are immoral necessarily hate those who engage in them. Of course that’s an absurd and pernicious charge, but Leftists hurl it often and everywhere. I wonder if de Blasio applies that principle consistently. I wonder if de Blasio hates everyone who engages in acts that he believes are immoral.

Mr. Cathy’s beliefs on the moral status of homoerotic activity and the nature of marriage derive from his Christian faith. Both the Old and New Testaments teach clearly that homoerotic acts are immoral and that marriage is a male-female union, as does, by the way, the Quran. Therefore, it’s not just Mr. Cathy who holds those beliefs. It’s all theologically orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims.

Does de Blasio seek to shut down every business in America whose owners are theologically orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims? If so, would this goal comport with the free exercise of religion? Are these groups allowed to freely exercise their religion so long as they don’t own businesses?

Maybe de Blasio can tell all people of faith which religious beliefs they must abandon in order to own a business in America. May people of faith believe that consensual adult incest is immoral and still own a business in America? What about bestiality, adultery, fornication, polygamy, drunkenness, covetousness, pride, blasphemy, or idolatry?

What if a Christian believes that the only path to eternal life is through Jesus Christ? That would mean Christians think non-believers are destined for eternal damnation. Many Leftists erroneously think such a belief represents the desires of Christians. As a Leftist, de Blasio may think this Christian belief about salvation is downright hateful. Should those who believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life be allowed to own a business in America?

Do tell, Mayor de Blasio, which religious beliefs may people of faith hold and still own a business in America?

If you would like to send a message to the New York City mayor, fill out the webform on this website.  And above all, please vote with your wallets and continue to patronize Chick-fil-A restaurants.

As the bathroom wars continue to unfold, and as the advocates of totalitolerance continue to embrace the arts of coercion, as they continue to bombard us with ideas so fine they have to be mandatory, it has been natural for Christians to try to pivot.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be opposing same sex mirage. Perhaps we shouldn’t be opposing the rights of mentally disturbed men to pee with our daughters. I know, somebody suggests, let’s turn the discussion to matters of religious liberty. Surely there we might find some common ground there. Surely there we will be able to reach a compromise.

There may be some short term tactical relief in such a move, and I am entirely in favor of it if and when it happens. Those who fight for such tactical relief are to be commended. But there is no long-term strategic success to be found in the fight for religious liberty. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but somebody has to. Here is the reason:

Religious liberty is itself a religious value.

Religions differ. They differ wildly. They differ fundamentally. Some religions value liberty for practitioners of other religions, and some religions don’t value liberty for practitioners of other religions. Some religions respect the authority of the individual to choose his own religion, and other religions don’t allow for conversions at all. If you want the fruit called religious liberty, you have to want the tree that this kind of fruit grows on.

This means that if we want maximum liberty for people who don’t believe in Jesus, then we will have to . . . believe in Jesus. If there is no God, and if Christ did not come back from the dead, then the bi-pedal carbon unit that doesn’t believe in Jesus is nothing more than 200 pounds of protoplasm with an average temperature of 98.6, and endowed by blind evolutionary processes with nothing in particular to speak of. Rights? In order to be rights at all, human rights have to be grounded in a reality that is completely out of the reach of our elected and appointed officials. And that means religion. For the best results, it needs to be the true religion. False ones let you down.

Religion makes people fly planes into skyscrapers. Religion makes people baptize babies. Religion makes people go door to door in order to offer little pieces of paper to other people. Religion makes widows be burned alive on the pyre of their deceased husbands. Religion makes other widows mail pitiful little checks to Joel Osteen. Religion makes people build hospitals in the jungles of the Congo. Talking about what “religion” does in the world is like defining “medicine” as “pills in bottles.” I am not sure you should take that. My aunt took a pill from a bottle once and was sick for a week.

In response to this dilemma, we are often offered “secularism” as a lo-fat alternative religion. Secularism is an arrangement whereby we adjust to the realities of our cosmopolitan world, and the genius of secularism is that it accommodates everybody. Well, actually they don’t accommodate everybody — but they do accommodate everybody who is willing to be accommodated! And it must be said that the accommodations have gotten much more tight in recent weeks. We can hardly turn around anymore.

First, notice that to make “secularism” the approved religion is to establish a religion. The religion you have established has no candles, altars, or pulpits, but it remains the reigning worldview, the one that reserves to itself the authority to sit in judgment on all other religions. Thus, a secularist magistrate reserves to himself the right to pronounce that Ahmed the Jihadist is not a “true Muslim.” Good to know, good to know. I didn’t know that the State Department was issuing fatwasnow. Well, they are. And when the Bible tells me not to love the world, the secularist tells me that I must applaud the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. In fact, when the pride of life in a codpiece swanks out in front of us all, I am now required to applaud like a North Korean at a missile parade. If I don’t applaud the courage! the courage! I am guilty of hate. And, come to think of it, I am. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil (Prov. 8:13). Unfortunately for me and my verse, a gent named Marcion at the Department of Justice has recently determined that Proverbs is “in the Old Testament

So while secularism claims not to be “a” religion, they do claim to be the arbiter of all religions — the faith of faiths, the religion of religions, the king of ki . . . better not go that far yet. Let’s give a few more months.

Second, please notice that secularism has been radically anemic in its defense of religious liberty. They have wanted to pretend that religious liberty was a value of theirs, when in reality religious liberty was a fruit of the Christian religion. As faith in Christ has waned, so also has our understanding of and commitment to religious liberty waned. As secularism has begun to function in terms of its own premises, we can readily see that their tolerance for views other than their own is rice-paper thick.

And third, this is only to be expected. Secularism has no transcendent ground for anything. There are transcendent claims, there are false transcendent claims, and then there are no transcendent claims. Jehovah spoke to Moses on the mountain of God. Muslims claim that Allah gave revelations to the prophet. But secularists issue predestinating directives and decrees from offices with eight-foot drop-down ceilings, waxed linoleum floors, and blaring florescent lights. The bureaucrat responsible for ruining your life has been sleeping at his desk for so long that one side of his head is flat. But he does wake up periodically to send you a notification.

This article was originally posted at Blog & Mablog.

Written by Matthew Hawkins

It’s remarkable, really. At the same time religious freedom appears both at a height of controversy in America and utterly collapsing in the Middle East, the world has at its fingertips volumes of research that affirm how good religious freedom is for every human on earth.

Most of us typically approach religious freedom through theology, philosophy, or history. Christians provide biblically informed arguments and learn from the history of our own tradition, both as martyrs and as oppressors. Similarly Judaism, Islam, and other religions provide their own rationale for religious freedom from within their traditions. And non-theists recognize their own self-interest in religious freedom when they are victims of theocratic oppression. We continue to need to cultivate and promote those reasons from within each religion and other worldviews.

But you may not have heard about the data-driven research that provide new tools with which to promote religious freedom. Sociologists and other scholars continue to find that religious freedom is a key ingredient to human flourishing around the globe.

Why do these evidence-based tools matter? In addition to providing worthwhile inquiry into human flourishing, these tools help communicate the universal value of religious freedom while bypassing animosity often rooted in ideological, political, or religious differences. For example, a national government might not care much about religious freedom because it wants to define and protect a national identity that includes religious identity.

For example, Indonesia’s government might understand the national identity of Indonesia to require most citizens to be Muslim. To be a Greek citizen with equal rights might mean to join the Greek Orthodox church. In Kazakhstan you might have a choice between either the Sunni expression of Islam there or an Orthodox expression of the Christian faith, but you’ll find your civil rights limited should you choose a minority faith, even if it is another expression of Islam or Christianity. In these environments religious freedom might be rejected as a threat to national identity.

Yet many government leaders desire some level of national security and economic prosperity. It just so happens that religious freedom strongly correlates to both security and prosperity. Thus, the evidence-based arguments for religious freedom provide both an appeal to the self-interest of national leadership and non-ideological arguments for those who genuinely seek the good of their people.

Here’s a quick glimpse at the research for further learning:

People are more safe and secure

Religious freedom correlates with the security of a people. For several years now the Pew Research Center has collected data that confirms this: the higher government restrictions are in given country, the higher incidence of social hostilities. Lower restrictions correlate to lower hostilities. A government that seeks the good of their people (Rom 13:14) ought to keep a light touch when considering restrictions on religion. In contrast, totalitarianism–religious or secular–steers citizens headlong into conflict and violence. Sometimes the hostilities are at the hands of the government, other times it is at the hands of the people while the government looks the other way.

The Pew research also shows a strong correlation between general governmentrestrictions and the targeting of religious minorities. Of 59 countries with high government restrictions, 43 of them employed restrictions that targeted specific religious minorities. Thus, where government restrictions exist for everyone, the experience of someone in a religious minority is likely to be more severe than even their neighbor in the religious majority. Research further shows religious freedom correlates highly “with the presence of other freedoms…that have significant correlations with a variety of positive social and economic outcomes ranging from better health care to higher incomes for women.”

Economies grow faster and are more stable

Religious freedom is good for business, and vice versa. This is the theme at Brian Grim’sReligious Freedom & Business Foundation:

“Given that religious freedom contributes to better economic and business outcomes, advances in religious freedom are in the self-interest of businesses, governments and societies. While this observation does not suggest that religious freedom is the sole or even main anecdote to poor economic performance, it does suggest that religious freedom is related to economic success.” (More via audio atCanon & Culture).

Businesses appear to stimulate innovation by embracing religious freedom. We may be learning that the cognitive skills developed by entertaining competing religious claims are related to problem solving in the workplace.

And in some sense, the data merely confirm what we know by instinct: hostilities and violence discourage commerce and chase away investment. Peaceful religious diversity is not necessarily easy, of course. But as Rep. Keith Ellison (MN-5) points out, such diversity sure beats homogeneity if the goal is a secure and prosperous society.

Religious freedom matters for everyone

According to the data, nearly three quarters of the world’s population (5.1 billion people) live in countries with high or very high hostilities or restrictions. That includes our brothers and sisters in Christ’s Kingdom and “all nations” among whom we are called to make disciples (Matt. 28:16-20). It is in this context Christians are commanded to “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15).

We rest in the tension between both being set apart (1 Pet. 2:5-10) and called to live among what scholars would call the “religious other” (1 Pet. 2:12). We reject coercion because we are confident in the Holy Spirit and because we are to spread the gospel “with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:16). Simply put, we are to delight in Christ and make disciples, all while advancing religious freedom out of love for our neighbors.

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

While another case of religious discrimination rears its bigoted head, liberals with unseeing eyes and venomous tongues mock any suggestion that Christians are facing persecution. Worse still they virulently oppose the types of laws that would protect religious liberty—you know, the liberty guaranteed in our First Amendment.

The latest victim of religious persecution exercised by religious bigots is Dr. Eric Walsh, a physician who in his role as a lay minister in the Seventh Day Adventist church occasionally preaches sermons that affirm Seventh Day Adventist theological positions.

Dr. Walsh was offered and accepted a position as a district health director in Georgia, after which some employees in the Georgia Department of Public Health heard rumors that Dr. Walsh had preached sermons on, among other topics, homosexuality, Islam, and Catholicism. These sermons had created problems for Dr. Walsh in California, including a misguided call from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Walsh’s firing.

After hearing these rumors, officials at the Georgia Department of Public Health watched hours of Dr. Walsh’s sermons on YouTube, immediately following which he was gleefully fired in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.”

This week, the First Liberty Institute (formerly the Liberty Institute) “filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that the state violated Walsh’s rights under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Ironically, this is the state where cowardly, unprincipled Governor Nathan Deal just two weeks ago vetoed a bill that would have offered protection of rights that even the First Amendment seems impotent to protect in the face of homosexual activism in collusion with activist judges, huge corporations, and hypocritical, intolerant entertainers.

In light of Dr. Walsh’s firing, read the feckless words of Deal in defense of his veto:

[Our Founding Fathers] had previously proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that Man’s Creator had endowed all men “with certain unalienable rights,” including “Liberty” which embraces religious liberty. They made it clear that those liberties were given by God and not by man’s government. Therefore, it was unnecessary to enumerate in statute or constitution what those liberties included.

In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections.

The irony is not that people of faith were seeking to buttress the First Amendment from the attacks of those who deem homoeroticism a First Principle. The irony is that Deal spoke these dismissive words shortly after Dr. Walsh had been fired by the state of Georgia because of his religious beliefs.

Why do “progressives” get so much wrong about conservative positions on both religious liberty and anti-discrimination laws?

“Progressives” either misunderstand or intentionally misconstrue the desire of conservatives to exclude the term “sexual orientation” from anti-discrimination laws and policies. “Progressives” allege that opposition to the addition of “sexual orientation” to anti-discrimination laws and policies is motivated by ignorance and hatred of persons who experience homoerotic attraction and place such attraction at the center of their identity.

“Progressives” are wrong.

Conservatives oppose the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in anti-discrimination laws for multiple reasons:

• The specious term “sexual orientation” erroneously conflates homosexuality and heterosexuality, which are, in reality, ontologically distinct. It should be obvious that the term “sexual orientation” is a political contrivance used to provide cover for the inclusion of homoeroticism as a protected category in law in that no one is “discriminated against” because of their heterosexuality. In objective terms, all humans are heterosexual.
• Unlike heterosexuality which is constituted by objective conditions (i.e., anatomical structures and biological processes), homosexuality is constituted solely by subjective sexual feelings and volitional acts that are appropriate objects of moral assessment.
• Homosexuality is wholly distinct from other conditions that are included in anti-discrimination laws, like sex, race, age, and nation of origin.
• Homosexuality—constituted as it is by subjective erotic feelings and volitional sexual acts—is, however, analogous to other conditions similarly constituted, and therefore, its inclusion opens the door for claims that polyamory and paraphilias should be included in anti-discrimination law.
• Once conditions constituted by subjective, fluid, erotic feelings and volitional sexual acts are offered special protections, the religious liberty of people of faith will be compromised.

Only fools and liars deny that religious liberty is eroding through the sullied efforts of homosexuals and their ideological accomplices.

Support IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-family message here in Illinois.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!

She was only 17 years-old when she died. Her father cut out her tongue and burned her alive.

What was her crime, and why did this man kill his own daughter in the most horrific imaginable way?

He was a Saudi Arabian official who worked with the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice – the religious police – and when his daughter became a Christian, he butchered and murdered her.

What does this have to do with Starbucks and Apple?

Both these companies blast Americans who stand for religious liberties and conservative moral values, even threatening states that will protect those liberties and values, claiming this discriminates against gays and lesbians.

Yet they have stores all over Saudi Arabia, a country where gays can be executed and where Muslims can kill their own family members if they convert to Christianity, as happened with this 17-year-old in 2008.

What sickening hypocrisy.

Last year, when Indiana passed a religious freedoms bill, ensuring that its citizens would not be forced to violate their consciences and participate in things like gay weddings, Tim Cook, the openly gay CEO of Apple, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post, stating, “There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.”

Cook opined that, “America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business. At Apple, we are in business to empower and enrich our customers’ lives. We strive to do business in a way that is just and fair.”

His words sounded noble: “This isn’t a political issue. It isn’t a religious issue. This is about how we treat each other as human beings. Opposing discrimination takes courage. With the lives and dignity of so many people at stake, it’s time for all of us to be courageous.”

And so Cook, acted “courageously,” threatening Indiana with a loss of business if the state did not reverse itself, and in a matter of days, the governor and legislature caved in to the pressure, as Apple, along with other major players, succeeded in bullying the people of Indiana.

But when it comes to countries like Saudi Arabia, where adulterers are beheaded on Friday afternoons in city squares, where thieves have their hands cut off, where those who speak against the government can be lashed 1,000 times, where someone posting openly gay messages on social media can be imprisoned, and where the beheaded victims are hung on crosses and displayed publicly for days, Apple is silent, content to make its money and not rock the Muslim boat.

What “courage.”

Or, more accurately, what hypocrisy.

Starbucks has also been an outspoken advocate of “gay rights,” with CEO Howard Schultz telling those “who support traditional marriage over gay marriage that their patronage is not needed at the coffee chain.”

Earlier this month, Starbucks joined more than 100 companies (including Apple) in urging North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to repeal the bathroom safety bill, which allegedly discriminates against LGBT rights.

How bold and courageous of Starbucks.

But when it comes to Saudi Arabia, not only does Starbucks operate all over this religiously-oppressive country, but the coffee giant completely capitulated to strict Islamic standards, removing the mermaid from its corporate logo.

Yes, you read that right.

Starbucks changed its logo so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities, since the mermaid image apparently displayed too much flesh.

But when it comes to offending Christians, Starbucks could care less, introducing “Holiday” cups last December in place of “Christmas” cups and trashing Christian sensitivities when they are in conflict with gay sensitivities.

Now, I don’t doubt that Cook and Schultz feel strongly about their views and actually believe that these important religious liberties bills are a threat to LGBT rights.

But their selective outrage is sickening and their moral hypocrisy glaring.

And so, when they pull their businesses from countries like China, with all its human rights violations, and Saudi Arabia, with its atrocities carried out in the name of Islam, we can take their indignation seriously.

Until then, the louder they protest here in America, the louder they shout their hypocrisy.

This article was originally posted at TownHall.com

Written by David Limbaugh

Can you believe anyone even organizes a “white privilege” conference these days — seven years into Barack Obama’s presidency? Well, you’d better believe it, and you should also know that at least one of the speakers at this conference is militantly Christophobic.

The 17th annual White Privilege Conference was held in Philadelphia from April 15 to 17. Blake Neff of The Daily Caller attended the conference and reported that “activist and author actually claimed that “almost every dysfunction in society, from racism and sexism to global warming and a weak economy, is united by the ideology of ‘Christian hegemony.’”

What’s the problem, you ask? Well, in the United States, according to Kivel, between 7,000 and 10,000 predominantly white Christian men run the major institutions and “colonize our mind” with Christianity’s core ideas, which leads to most of the world’s problems.

Kivel identified three particularly severe problems in the modern world that are caused or worsened by Christianity. First are wars in the Middle East, which he says are a result of Christianity’s effort to spread Western ideas and influence.

The Bible does direct Christians to spread the “good news” to the ends of the earth (Matthew 28:18-20). But Christianity started in the Middle East and spread outward from there. By A.D. 100, the Christian church had been established in regions throughout the Mediterranean, largely because of the Apostle Paul’s missionary journeys (Acts 16-20) and the evangelism of Peter, John and others.

The Middle East has switched hands countless times throughout history — Romans, Byzantines, Persians, Seljuk Turks, Mongols, Ottomans, British, French, Italians and others.

Perhaps Kivel had in mind America’s wars with Iraq in the past quarter-century and our effort to plant self-rule in the region. Though the wisdom of our nation-building effort can certainly be debated, our involvement is hardly the reason for the age-old conflicts in the Middle East, which, in all likelihood, will continue as long as the world does.

The second problem Kivel attributed to Christianity is the economic destruction it has caused because, wrote Neff, “it provides that God-like ‘invisible hand’ that supposedly drives market forces within a flawed capitalist system.”

It is tragic that the left has successfully rewritten history to demonize capitalism as the source of poverty rather than the great engine of unprecedented prosperity it has been for the United States, the Western world and beyond.

Kivel identified the third problem as Christianity’s conflict with “global warming,” wrote Neff, “because under Christianity mankind has dominion over the Earth, rather than requiring that humans treat the Earth itself as ‘sacred.’” Interestingly, Kivel is lexiconically challenged, as he failed to use the proper terminology for this vexing menace — “climate change.”

The Bible gives man dominion over all other living things (Genesis 1:28), but it does not sanction man’s abuse of the environment or other creatures. The Bible does not exhort mankind to deify “Mother Earth” as radical environmentalists do. But it does promote prudent stewardship, from the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) to God’s commanding that the fields and vineyards be sown and harvested for six years but left fallow in the seventh year to replenish the soil’s nutrients (Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:1-7).

Christianity, argued Kivel, also orients us to distinguish between good and evil, which forces us to adopt a “with us or against us” mentality. “There’s nothing inherently good or bad about the weather or about people,” Kivel insisted.

I’ll concede that though the weather can be a destructive force, it is not capable of good or evil. But yes, the Bible definitely distinguishes between good and evil, and it is quite clear that all men are fallen.

Next, Kivel made the irrational leap that to distinguish between good and evil leads to condemnation of various things as worthy of destruction. From my perspective, however, it is not Christians but leftists such as Kivel who are most intolerant toward people and ideas of other religions or secularists.

Finally, Kivel castigated Christianity’s “hierarchical” views that place “God over people, men over women, parents over children, (and) white people over people of color,” which, in his view, inevitably leads to systems that justify or glorify oppression.

The Bible does — big surprise — place God (the Creator) over man (the creature), and it places parents over their children for the purpose of raising them through their formative years — an idea no doubt shocking to such leftists. But it does not teach that there are differences in human dignity; all people (male and female) are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), which is intrinsically irrespective of race. It is rich for Kivel to argue that the Bible glorifies racial oppression when Christians were the leaders in the anti-slavery movement.

Before you dismiss all this as the thinking of a fringe leftist, please consider that it is a logical extension of “progressive” thinking that liberals, especially in the universities and the media, engage in every day. Indeed, it would be intellectually dishonest to deny that leftist race- and gender-baiting, as well as capitalism-bashing, permeate our university curricula throughout the United States. Everything involves identity categories — race, gender, income and the rest. Ironically, the left’s obsession over race, gender and the like tends to diminish, rather than promote, human dignity and individuality.

Despite the skewed thinking and propaganda of leftists such as Kivel, Christianity, as abundant evidence demonstrates, has been a force of good in this world and continues to be.

This article was originally posted at the Stream.org

Written by Samuel Smith

“Progressives” who view the cultural embrace of deviant sexuality as good seek to eradicate the last cultural obstacle to its universal embrace: biblical truth. Since that’s not possible, they seek instead to eradicate religious liberty by incrementally narrowing the cultural terrain in which the “free exercise of religion” is permitted to roam.

“Progressives” committed to the absolutely free exercise of sexual deviance view religious liberty as exercised by theologically orthodox Christians as a malignant tumor that harms the health of the republic. In order to destroy this insalubrious tumor without destroying the host, religious liberty must be excised slowly and carefully, tissue by tissue.

There’s no clearer evidence that “progressives” believe religious liberty has no place in the public square than the virulent response to reasonable laws proposed or passed in a few states to protect that which the First Amendment already protects.

Of course, since foolish inconsistency is the hallmark of little “progressive” minds, religious liberty for those who affirm heterodox or heretical religious beliefs is hunky dory because such beliefs neither prescribe nor proscribe. When it comes to sexuality, such beliefs affirm anything and everything. And affirmation of desire is the Left’s supreme truth.

But do all “progressives” share the beliefs of  New York Times columnist Frank Bruni who ordained that religious liberty should be restricted to “pews, homes and hearts.”

Here’s what Michelle Obama said about faith:

Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon and good music and a good meal. It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well, especially…when …we’re making those daily choices about how to live our lives.
 
We see that in the life of Jesus Christ.  Jesus didn’t limit his ministry to the four walls of the church. We know that….And our charge is to find Him everywhere, every day by how we live our lives. That is how we practice our faith. You see, living out our eternal salvation is not a once-a-week kind of deal.  

And here’s what the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. said in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”:

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

…

More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God…. 

…

I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

…

I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God?“ 

…

In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. 

Whose words more comport with the First Amendment: Frank Bruni’s or Martin Luther King Jr.’s? Whose words have inspired courageous, noble, and sacrificial works? Whose words more resonate with truth?

While children in elementary schools are being taught the body and soul-destroying lies that homoerotic activity is good, that families in which children are intentionally deprived of either mothers or fathers are good, that rejection of one’s physical embodiment as male or female is good, and that marriage has no intrinsic nature, many Christians say and do exactly what “LGBTQQAP” activists want them to say and do: nothing.

And now the government is ordering Christians to use their labor, their gifts, and their property in the service of a type of event that God hates. Such unjust laws and court decisions must be resisted. Christians must resist all efforts to undermine the liberty that Michelle Obama and Martin Luther King Jr. urge Christians to embrace and make visible through works.

“Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men,
knowing that from the Lord you will receive the
inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.”
~Colossians 3: 23-24

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

In what is already a controversial session due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on many cases in the upcoming months that will have wide-reaching effects in American life. Here are three decisions that Christians should know about.

Health Standards: Protecting or Burdening Women?

Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt (formerly v. Cole) 

Pro-lifers across the country will want to pay close attention to this case arising out of Texas. In light of the haunting Kermit Gosnell story in 2013, the Texas state legislature enacted safety measures for abortion clinics. The law would require abortion clinics to adhere to the same standards as outpatient surgical centers and would require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles in case health complications for the mother arise. If enforced, approximately three quarters of Texas abortion clinics now in operation would close.

Abortion advocates say this law violates the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a doctrine which says any law that places a substantial obstacle to abortion is unconstitutional. In contrast, Texas argues that these are commonsense health regulations and that women are not burdened because the remaining abortion facilities are within reasonable driving distances throughout the state.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Texas law saying that it is not the role of the judiciary to consider the extent a state’s health laws have on restricting abortion access. The Supreme Court will now determine whether the Fifth Circuit properly used the “undue burden” standard in making its decision.

Of Nuns and Birth Control

Zubik v. Burwell 

What wins? Freedom of conscience or government interests? In Zubik v. Burwell, religious employers, such as Christian universities and Little Sisters of the Poor, are fighting Obamacare’s HHS mandate which requires them to cover the costs of “all FDA-approved contraceptives,” including abortion-inducing drugs, for their employees.

This may sound similar to last year’s Hobby Lobby case where the Court ruled the government cannot force employers with longstanding religious beliefs to pay for coverage that violates their conscience. To comply with Hobby Lobby, the Obama administration created an exception for religious employers that excludes the objectionable content from their insurance plans.

However, the federal government is still forcing the employers’ insurance companies and other third-party administrators to cover the costs of their employees who seek to obtain abortion pills. This means employers are still actively involved in providing drugs in their healthcare plans that violate their conscience.

The Court will weigh whether Obamacare’s HHS mandate and its “accommodation” violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court’s decision will depend on whether the government can prove that this is the least restrictive way of advancing a compelling public interest.

A Separation between State and Playgrounds

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley

The state of Missouri prevented pre-school and daycare centers from using a government program that provides recycled tires for safer playground surfaces. The reason? The pre-school is run by a church. Missouri claims that allowing the program to serve a church-run daycare will violate the principle of separation of church and state.

The Court will determine whether excluding churches from an otherwise neutral government program constitutes a violation of the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses.

This article was originally posted at Mauck & Baker, LLC.

I can barely contain my exuberance! Last week, IFI’s own Laurie Higgins recorded an interview with Craig Dellimore for his weekly “At Issue” news program to discuss religious liberty versus the radical LGBT agenda.  Make no mistake, this type of mainstream media exposure — an uninterrupted half hour examination of the issues from a conservative perspective — is exceedingly rare.  While the media usually misrepresents orthodox Christians and how we live our faith in the public square, this was an amazing opportunity to elaborate on the Judeo-Christian principles we seek to uphold.

Laurie hit a grand-slam in terms of articulating and explaining our position. This message was aired on WBBM radio, a 50,000-watt station, reaching a large secular audience in the greater Chicago area and beyond. It is likely that many listeners have never heard a conservative defense of these issues. I thank God for this rare opportunity.

Please pray that what Laurie was able to communicate would resonate with those who were listening, and bring greater awareness of the plight of religious liberty in our culture and a greater understanding of sexual morality.

Laurie is an invaluable member of the IFI team.  Anyone who reads her writings knows how extraordinary she is at composing thought-provoking and compelling articles that help us think through contemporary issues and godless worldviews that dominate the public square. These same skills came across winsomely in this interview as she answered tough but important and fair questions by Mr. Dellimore.  Few people are able to do what she did in this interview so effectively.

I highly recommend that you stream or download the podcast of this program and take 28 minutes to listen to it in the near future, and then please consider sharing this interview with your friends, family and neighbors.  It will bless you and equip you in defending our faith.

Click on the button below to stream the MP3, or right click HERE and “save link as” to download the file:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Higgins-At-Issue-Religious-Freedom-41020161.mp3

The interview aired on WBBM News Radio twice on Sunday, and is now available as a podcast on the “At Issue” webpage.  If you are as grateful as I am for Mr. Dellimore’s willingness to interview IFI, please take a moment to send an email to the station at wbbmnewsradioweb@cbsradio.com. To send a letter of encouragement to Laurie, please email us HERE.

Support IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!