Intellectual frustration is boiling over—mine, that is.

Opponents of RFRA laws would like these laws to protect religious liberty as long as religious liberty protections never trump the wishes of those who affirm a homosexual identity. Homosexual activists seek to effectively neuter the First Amendment. They seek to enshrine in law the right to discriminate based on religion and then have the audacity to say—as Apple CEO Tim Cook has—that RFRA laws “go against the very principles our nation was founded on.” Say what? Last time I checked, this nation was founded on religious liberty—not homoerotic privilege.

“Progressives” fret with feigned hysteria that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is really about homosexuality, which points to the unsavory truth that the only current threat to religious liberty in America is posed by the social and political movement to normalize homoeroticism. If the jackboot fits, homosexual activists should just wear it.

Here are my responses to two of the fatuous arguments that the Left produces in their effort to amend the Constitution without having to go through the work of amending the Constitution. Getting rid of that pesky First Amendment Free Exercise Clause would be oh so tedious and intellectually challenging. It’s much easier to hurl epithets, concoct absurd analogies, and redefine terms trusting that few will bother to think carefully about the glittering new redefinitions.

Bad argument 1. This law is designed to discriminate against “gays.”

Christian owners of wedding-related businesses are not refusing to serve homosexuals, nor do they desire to refuse to serve homosexuals.  Some are refusing to use their gifts, labor, and time in the service of a type of event that God they serve abhors.

Barronelle Stutzman, the elderly florist in Washington state who is being sued because she wouldn’t make floral arrangements for a same-sex “wedding,” had served the homosexual man who requested flowers for his faux-wedding. In fact, she was friends with him and had sold him flowers on multiple occasions knowing that he was homosexual.

There is a huge difference between discrimination against persons and discrimination between types of events or actions—a difference liberals refuse to acknowledge for strategic reasons.

Refusing to sell pastries or tulips to a customer who happens to be homosexual or bisexual (or black or white or a man or a woman) would constitute an immoral, unbiblical, indefensible act. Refusing to create and provide a cake or floral arrangement for an event that celebrates a union that your faith teaches is abhorrent to the God you serve is a biblically warranted, morally defensible act.

The Left claims that since both homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are requesting the same product, the discrimination present in the refusal to provide goods or services for a homosexual “wedding” constitutes discrimination based on their “sexual orientation.” But such a claim requires assent to the embedded, unspoken proposition that a homosexual “marriage” is, in reality, identical to a sexually complementary marriage. Orthodox (small “o”) Christians reject that claim as false.

What “progressives” are really claiming is that outside their homes and pews, orthodox Christians may enjoy religious liberty, but they, “progressives,” get to define all the terms of the debate. If they, “progressives,” claim that there are no ontological differences between non-marital, same-sex “weddings” and marital, sexually complementary weddings, then abracadabra, there are no ontological differences. In the faith-based, presuppositional, totalitarian universe of “progressives,” refusal to provide goods or services for the celebration of non-marital, same-sex “weddings” is not discrimination between two different types of events (because the Left has ordained them identical), but, rather, discrimination against persons. Very tricksy rhetorical game.

Homosexual “weddings” are not identical or equivalent to true weddings. In reality, they are the anti-thesis of true weddings. Homosexual “weddings” imitate or, rather, mock true weddings. When two men asked Baronelle Stutzman to make floral arrangements for their “wedding,” they were asking her to make a product she had never made before: an anti-wedding floral arrangement.

Bad argument 2. (ad nauseum) This RFRA law is the equivalent of Jim Crow laws that permitted restaurants to refuse to serve blacks.

For the umpteenth time, homosexuality is not analogous to race. Race is 100 percent heritable and immutable in all cases. Most important, race is not constituted by subjective desire or volitional acts.

In contrast, homosexuality is not 100 percent heritable, is in some cases mutable, but most important, homosexuality is constituted centrally by subjective desire and volitional activity, which is perfectly legitimate to assess morally. Much better analogues for homosexuality are polyamory or consensual adult incest.

Therefore, if homosexuality is included as a protected category in anti-discrimination policy and law, shouldn’t other conditions constituted by subjective desire and volitional acts be included in anti-discrimination law? Shouldn’t polyamory and consensual adult incest (or paraphilias which too are constituted by powerful unchosen and seemingly intractable desire and volitional acts) be considered, alongside race, as constitutionally protected categories? Shouldn’t business owners be compelled to use their gifts to help them celebrate their polyamorous and incestuous commitment ceremonies?

And what about bisexuality, which has been deemed a “sexual orientation”? Should Christian bakers, florists, and photographers be compelled to create and provide goods or services for a commitment ceremony between two women and a man who identify as bisexual?

As a fix, some conservatives are recommending that Indiana pass a law that prohibits discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” Such laws are misguided for three reasons:

• First, “sexual orientation” really means homosexuality and bisexuality because in any objective sense, all humans are heterosexual, and, therefore, discrimination based on heterosexuality is nonsensical.
• Second, as mentioned, laws that specifically protect one condition constituted by subjective desire and volitional acts (e.g., homosexuality or bisexuality) open the legal floodgates to other conditions similarly constituted.
• Third, homosexuals will use such laws to prohibit people of faith from discriminating among different types of actions and events, as is happening to Christian owners of wedding-related businesses.

Not including “sexual orientation” in anti-discrimination laws no more constitutes legal carte blanche to refuse service to homosexuals or bisexuals than does the absence of the categories of paraphilias, polyamory, gluttony, or adultery constitute legal carte blanche to refuse to serve frotteurists, zoophiles, polyamorists, gluttons, or adulterers.

As a Christian, I shouldn’t refuse to serve whites, but I should refuse to provide cakes for a celebration of white superiority.

I shouldn’t refuse to sell tulips to a woman who affirms a bisexual identity, but  I should refuse to create and provide floral arrangements for her commitment ceremony to a man and woman.

I shouldn’t refuse to serve Muslims, but I should refuse to photograph a pro-ISIS rally.

I shouldn’t refuse to sell a pastry to a homosexual, but I should refuse to bake a cake for his anti-wedding.

By the way, remember this news story next time someone asks, “How will same-sex marriage hurt you?”

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

CLICK HERE for Details

It’s Hoosier David versus rainbow-clad Goliath.

Indiana Governor Mike Pence recently signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in a small, humble ceremony—unlike the prideful, garish, gay ceremony that former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn staged for the signing of Illinois’ marriage-deconstruction law (invited 2,300 guests, used 110 pens, imported Abraham Lincoln’s desk from Springfield for the signing, and quoted from the Gettysburg Address.)

The contrast is marked. Pence has acted humbly in the service of truth. Quinn acted pridefully in the service of lies.

In the wake of Governor Pence’s courageous act, he and Indiana have been the recipients of blistering attacks, both verbal and fiscal.

As usual when blustery homosexual activism is involved, ironies abound. Marc Benioff, CEO of San Francisco-based company Salesforce has canceled “all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination” (while it continues its business dealings in China—the font and source of human rights protections).

Since the Indiana law is similar to the federal RFRA law sponsored in the U.S. House by New York Democrat Chuck Shumer, passed by the U.S. Senate 97-3, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, what, pray tell, is Benioff worried about? Does he worry that during a business trip, his customers or employees will suddenly decide to order a wedding cake to be transported back to San Francisco?

John McCormack, writing on the Weekly Standard blog clarifies what RFRA will actually protect:

RFRA allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 

The law does not provide absolute, unfettered freedom to people of faith to do just anything they want. Nor are people of faith seeking absolute unfettered freedom to do just anything they want. This law reinforces First Amendment protections against the increasing encroachment of government impelled most often by homosexual activists.

RFRA laws would permit religious liberty to be limited only if there exists a compelling government interest in doing so and only if the burden on religious liberty is the least restrictive means of furthering that government interest. Court cases have gone both ways. Sometimes courts have decided in favor of religious liberty; sometimes they’ve ruled against it.

Indiana’s RFRA is carefully worded to protect the right of people of faith who are engaged in commerce to allow their business decisions to be informed by their faith. Christians understand what many homosexual activists and their ideological allies seem not to, which is that the totality of life should conform to biblical principles. The free exercise of religion is not limited to hearts, homes, and pews.

Governor Mike Pence has the U.S. Constitution on his side. He has court precedent on his side. He has the precedents set in 19 other states that have RFRA laws, including blue Illinois. But opposition to this law include marauding bands of hate-mongering homosexual activists, arrogant Hollywood lemmings, and feckless captains of industry.

Homosexual activists, fancying themselves the heir apparent to the great civil rights leaders, are in the vanguard of the assault on the Hoosier state.

Following close behind is Hollywood—widely known for arrogance, ignorance, immorality, vanity, and cool-crowd-following.

And then bringing up the rear with powerful reinforcements are business leaders—rarely noted for their deep thinking on matters moral, ethical, or philosophical.  With their pockets lined with lucre, they’re responding to the vitriol from homosexual activists with reflexive knee jerks that enhance their pride in their own pretense of moral courage. Does anyone believe these business leaders have thought deeply about the First Amendment, homosexuality, or marriage? One of the chief goals of business leaders is to make business decisions that increase profits, but no responsible business leader can divorce profit from principle—and by principle, I mean right principle.

What is astounding in this brouhaha is the deceit of the Left. Homosexual activists and their media sycophants continue to proclaim—without evidence—that, for example, Christians owners of wedding-related businesses are seeking to refuse to serve homosexuals. But refusing to use their gifts, labor, and time to produce a product or provide a service for a celebration that violates their religious beliefs does not constitute a refusal to serve homosexuals. In fact, the cases that have been in the press actually expose the Leftist lie, because the owners of the wedding-related businesses have, indeed, served homosexuals on multiple occasions prior to the wedding-related requests.

Religious-owners of businesses should be allowed to discriminate between types of events and products when making business-decisions regarding the provision of their goods and services. Experiencing homoerotic desire and affirming a homoerotic identity does not give men and women absolute dictatorial authority to command what kinds of events religious owners of businesses will serve or what types of products they will make. Homoerotic desire does not supersede religious liberty—or in a sane and moral universe, it would not.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services for bisexuals’, polygamists’, or polyamorists’ commitment ceremonies or in the near future, weddings (which could be construed as discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”)

Christians and Jews should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services for pro-Hamas events (which could be construed as discrimination based on religion).

Christians should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services for events sponsored by eugenics organizations like Planned Parenthood (which in the mad, mad, mad, mad world of feminism that sees a war on women everywhere could be construed as discrimination based on sex).

And Christians should be allowed to refuse to provide services for GLSEN events. Though dogmatic Leftist ideologues would likely construe such refusal as discrimination against homosexuals, it would, in reality, reflect the kind of business decision that Mark Benioff thinks he’s making. Refusing to provide goods and services for a GLSEN event would reflect a principled objection to the event—not the people hosting it.

Other organizations threatening to reconsider their involvement with Indiana include, Eli Lilly, Yelp, Angie’s List, the NCAA, and (irony of ironies) the Disciples of Christ denomination, which apparently supports religious discrimination.

Where do we witness courage? We are witnessing courage through the heroic actions of Mike Pence and every Hoosier who defends him and this law with unwavering steadfastness in the face of withering assaults. Another biblical allusion comes to mind. It appears the citizens of Sodom are clamoring at Lot’s door.

But we can do something.

Take ACTION:  Express with courage, boldness, and grace your support for Governor Mike Pence.

1.)  Call  his office and thank him for standing for religious liberty and freedom.   His office telephone number is (317) 232-4567.

2.)  Get on social media.  Click here to access his Facebook page.  Send this article out by Twitter, include these hashtags in your tweet:  #StandwithIndiana  and  #RFRA

3.)  Contact Eli Lilly; Yelp (415) 908-3801; Angie’s List; the NCAA at (877) 262-1492 ; and, if you’re a member, the Disciples of Christ.

4.)  Support Indiana businesses.

The Truth Project

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

CLICK HERE for Details

Written by Mark K. Lewis

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo recently declared: “Our rights do not come from God.” Then this week, Sen. Ted Cruz’s assertion that “our rights don’t come from man, they come from God Almighty” came under scrutiny when Meredith Shiner, a Yahoo reporter, tweeted: “Bizarre to talk about how rights are God-made and not man-made in your speech announcing a POTUS bid? When Constitution was man-made?”

I am astounded by how many people in this country (and particularly in the media) don’t believe the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Declaration of Independence also refers to “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Believing that our laws are God-given, and not man-made, has become something that secular liberals seem to take joy in openly mocking. As if there were something inherently funny or backwards about faith. As if there were something hollow and foolish about believing in God.

Obviously, I believe very strongly that the opposite is true.

This might sound like a pedantic point to make, but nearly all of our political discord comes down to fundamental differences in our worldviews. Two very good people can start out with two very different philosophies of life and inevitably come to two very different conclusions on a nearly innumerable amount of problems. Sometimes the consequences are profound. And that’s the case here. Rejection of this foundational principle of God-given law would inexorably lead someone to come to vastly different conclusions about any number of things compared to someone like me who embraces this premise. When liberals and conservatives differ over whether or not the state has the right to usurp this or that right, dig deep enough, and you will often find the root of the disagreement lies here.

I believe very strongly that our rights come from God. And I believe nearly as strongly that the implications of believing that our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are granted by the state are potentially catastrophic. Ideas have consequences, and while some might see quibbling over such esoteric and grandiose ideas to be a waste of time, the truth is that where one comes down on such fundamental questions will likely predetermine where one comes down on a wide range of modern-day “hot-button” issues. When you consider how much of the current political debate hinges on fights about individual liberty and the size and scope of government, this makes sense.

Set aside religion and consider this: If our fundamental rights are merely granted by the state, then they can be taken away by the state. What is more, the state would have no moral compunction not to rob us of our rights. The state is not particularly moral or special or better than people. The state is people. If they don’t have some larger, higher moral code that guides them, then assumptions about what constitutes the “good” are, at least to some degree, arbitrary. Absent an immutable standard, why wouldn’t the law of the jungle rule? In nature, predators prey on the weak. Can we honestly convince ourselves that people are better than that? Some are, sure. But many are not.

Without an absolute law that transcends the whims of man, the very concept of “rights” metastasizes into a definition having more to do with the current and often capricious preference of the majority. Oppressed minorities have long found comfort (and, in fact, seized the moral high ground) by pointing out that there is a greater law, a universal sense of right and wrong, that transcends the will of the majority.

The majority can be wrong. The majority can be in the wrong. History is littered with examples of the folly of man-made law, of man-made injustice. (This is not to say people haven’t done terrible things in the name of God — they have!)

Consider Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail“: “We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights,” he wrote. “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, the secular left seems to want to entrust human law to always be just. That’s fine when it is. But what happens when it isn’t?

Originally published at TheWeek.com.

Last month, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone published a statement on Catholic teaching derived from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that he intends to add to the faculty and staff handbook that governs four Catholic high schools in his diocese. This much-needed statement has generated a nationwide dust-up. He has received both support and opposition, but as usual the usual “progressive” suspects are the most cacophonous.

Here’s an excerpt from Cordileone’s statement, which makes clear what is required of administrators, faculty, and staff:

As effective professionals in a Catholic School setting, we all—administrators, faculty and staff—are  required and expected to avoid fostering confusion among the faithful and any dilution of the schools’ primary Catholic mission. Therefore, administrators, faculty and staff of any faith or of no faith, are expected to arrange and conduct their lives so as not to visibly contradict, undermine or deny these truths. To that end, further, we all must refrain from public support of any cause or issue that is explicitly or implicitly contrary to that which the Catholic Church holds to be true.

Further, those who identify as Catholic have even more rigorous expectations, especially teachers:

[A]ll administrators, faculty and staff who are Catholics, and particularly those engaged as classroom teachers, have an even higher calling, according to which they must not only avoid public contradiction of their status as professional agents in the mission of Catholic Education, but are also called to conform their hearts, minds and consciences, as well as their public and private behavior, ever more closely to the truths taught by the Catholic Church.

Apparently, faculty and staff are shocked, shocked to find Catholic doctrine going on in Catholic schools. Now, 80% of them have signed a petition objecting to the requirement that Catholic teachers affirm Catholic doctrine.

And to which tenets of Catholic doctrine do these teachers in Catholic high schools object? Apparently, their objections focus on Catholic teaching related to sexuality and abortion.

It should come as no surprise to regular IFI readers to learn that an English teacher is among the dozen teachers who created the teacher petition opposing Cordileone’s statement. Jim Jordan, chair of the English Department at Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory in San Francisco, expresses these deep thoughts:

As teachers, we are not only seeking to preserve a safe and vibrant community that supports education and the free exchange of ideas, but the safety and well-being of our students. This language in this judgmental context undermines the mission of Catholic education and the inclusive, diverse and welcoming community we prize at our schools. It is an attack not only on teachers’ labor and civil rights, but on young people who are discovering who they are in the world.

Several thoughts about Jordan’s thoughts:

1.)  Requiring Catholic teachers in private Catholic schools to affirm Catholic doctrine does not prohibit the free exchange of ideas on the parts of students. Nor does it prevent teachers from exposing students to multiple points of view. It simply requires that teachers publicly affirm Catholic beliefs as truth.

2.)  Students are not made “unsafe” upon hearing in a Catholic school that Catholic doctrine views contraception as “morally unacceptable,” or that “adultery, masturbation, fornication, the viewing of pornography and homosexual relations” are “gravely evil,” or that “human life is sacred and must be protected”  Students may be uncomfortable when exposed to ideas with which they disagree or that point them toward life choices that oppose unchosen desires, but such discomfort constitutes absence of “safety” only in the infinitely expansive rhetorical universe of homosexualists. And in an academic context in which the “free exchange of ideas” is valued, discomfort should be expected.

3.)  Jordan refers to but does not define student “well-being.” Catholic doctrine has the same goal as Jim Jordan and his pedagogical posse. The Catholic Church understands that God opposes, for example, fornication, feticide, and homoerotic activity, and, therefore, such acts vitiate human flourishing and put at risk eternal life. Affirming that which God condemns undermines student well-being.

4.)  Jordan finds vexing the “judgmental context” of a restatement of Catholic doctrine in a handbook for teachers who teach in Catholic schools. Would Jordan feel similarly incensed if Cordileone required teachers to affirm Catholic teaching on consensual adult incest, which is called a “grave offense” that “marks a regression toward animality”? Would Jordan argue that such judgmental language inhibits the free exchange of ideas or undermines student well-being and safety or that it constitutes an attack on teachers’ civil rights?

5.)  Being a welcoming community does not require the affirmation of all beliefs, all feelings, and all behavioral acts. Certainly, Jesus did not think so.

Catholic moral teaching does, indeed, make judgments about what constitutes moral behavior—as do Jim Jordan and his fellow petition signatories. The problem is that Jordan and his compatriots base their judgments on something other than the Bible.

Jordan feigns opposition to “judgmental contexts” even as he creates a judgement-dripping petition for his colleagues to sign—one which states that “the recently proposed handbook language is harmful to our community and creates an atmosphere of mistrust and fear.”

Since they’re working in Catholic schools, it would behoove these teachers to know that central to the mission of Catholic education is the forging of distinctly Catholic identities in their students. And the mission of Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory’s mission is “to prepare our students to become service-oriented leaders with a commitment to living the Gospel.”

An equally outrageous action has been undertaken by a local governmental body.  The bumptious buttinskies of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who seek to impose their moral beliefs on even Catholic schools, unanimously voted for a resolution  that dogmatically proclaims Cordileone’s statement “contrary to shared San Francisco values of non-discrimination, women’s rights, inclusion, and equality for all humans.” There may have been a typo in their resolution. I think they meant to say “Sodom”—not San Francisco.

The supervisors object specifically to the parts of Cordileone’s statement that identify homosexuality, extra-marital relations, fornication, contraception, pornography use, masturbation, and assisted reproductive technologies as violations of Catholic doctrine.

The supervisors fret that if teachers in Catholic schools should be expected to “conduct their public lives so as to not visibly contradict, undermine or deny these truths,” their personal lives would be impacted. Heaven forbid that Catholic teachers should be expected to refrain from engaging in behavior that God abhors.

Further, the supervisors in all their glorious humility proclaim that “San Francisco is known around the world as a place of inclusion, tolerance, and acceptance of individuals and their life choices, regardless of their…religion.” [emphasis added]

Anticipating that the irony in such a claim might be noticed, the supervisors in all their glorious humility sought to define all religion for all the world: “All religion is rooted in the idea that God is love, which is in parallel to our shared San Francisco values of inclusion.”

I’m not sure how these supervisors arrived at the conclusion that God’s nature “is in parallel to” San Francisco values, but they certainly didn’t arrive at it via the Bible. One of God’s attributes is love, but it’s not the kind of love that involves gentle people wearing flowers in their hair at a San Francisco love-in.

God’s attributes are inseparable. God’s love is inseparable from his holiness, his justice, his immutability, his sovereignty, his wisdom, and his goodness. In 1 Corinthians 13, the “Love Chapter,” we learn, among other things, that love “does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth.”

And how do we foolish, fallen humans know what is true? God tells us in his Word what is true. God has told us that homoerotic activity, fornication, adultery, looking at others with lust (i.e., porn use), and murder (e.g., abortion) are wrong.

The supervisors may be correct in one regard. The Catholic beliefs to which Cordileone’s proposed changes allude likely do not comport with “San Francisco values” regarding abortion, homoerotic activity, porn use, and marriage. And apparently San Francisco values don’t comport with San Francisco values regarding non-discrimination, because a lot of San Franciscans endorse discrimination based on religion if the religion in question is Catholicism (or orthodox Christianity).

Here’s another radical proposal: Those who hate Catholic doctrine should seek employment at non-Catholic institutions.

Folks, the Left means it when they say the free exercise of religion extends only to “hearts, homes, and pews.” They desperately want religion out of even religious schools. Translation: in this brave new world, the exercise of religion is not free at all.

Your on-going monthly support will go directly toward influencing our Illinois culture and government with Biblical values.

You can also sign up as an IFI Sustaining Partner!

Your monthly support is important to our mission!

Whether you’re going out for a pizza, a coffee, a grocery run, a tank of gas or a washer and dryer, chances are more than 142 times greater that your hard-earned dollars are lining the pockets of your favorite corporations that are funding liberal, anti-family organizations and activities.

Krispy Kreme or Dunkin Donuts? A VW or a Toyota? Carl’s Jr. or McDonald’s? A Coke or a Dr. Pepper? Lowes or Home Depot? Whatever you purchase, your dollars are more than likely going to liberal or conservative causes … and most likely the former.

2ndVote has just unleashed a multi-faceted scoring system that pinpoints the most anti-family and pro-family corporations (and those in-between) vying for consumers’ dollars. Unfortunately for conservative and Christian consumers, most of their dollars often end up funding causes that work against the family values and causes they champion.

2nd Vote National Outreach Director Robert Kuykendall wants to get conservatives in tune with what they’re supporting with every purchase.

“2nd Vote is dedicated to helping conservative consumers keep their spending in line with their values,” Kuykendall told LifeSiteNews, announcing the launch of the organization’s newest project. “We believe that everyone has one vote for their values at the ballot box, but they have the opportunity to vote on their values every day with their wallets.”

To make consumers more aware of where their dollars are going and to hold corporations accountable for the activities and behaviors they support, hundreds of corporations have been graded on seven different issues — Marriage, Pro-Life, 2nd Amendment Rights, Common Core, Corporate Welfare, School Choice, and Environment.

“We believe the reason for this is that Americans who hold pro-life and other traditional values have not done a good job holding these entities accountable,” Kuykendall explained. “We use a 5-point scoring scale to represent a philosophical orientation on the issue and overall: a score of 1 means a corporation’s activity is Liberal and a 5 means the activity is Conservative. However, we also believe that a Neutral score, which we designate as a 3, is a good thing because we can show that that corporation’s activity does not go against our values.”

Kuykendall gives an example of what started his endeavor and how purchases or donations are more than they might seem. For instance, most didn’t know that buying a Ford Mustang, using your American Express, filing up your tank at Shell or drinking an Ensure would fund abortions through Planned Parenthood.

“2nd Vote was actually born out of pro-life principles,” Kuykendall points out. “One of our founding members discovered that the dollars he was regularly donating to the March of Dimes were going to Planned Parenthood. The question from the beginning was, ‘Why would a charity or corporation fund a group whose activity goes against the traditional values of so many Americans?'”

Calling all corporations …

Here’s a glimpse of how 2ndVote rated some of the world’s top corporations when it comes to the stuff and services it buys. The ratings represent the average score the corporations earned on all seven issues combined. Scoring ranges are as follows: 1─ Liberal, 2─ Lean Liberal, 3─ Neutral, 4─ Lean Conservative, 5— Conservative. Just a note … only two corporations scored in the Conservative 4─5 range, while 285 corporations rated in the Liberal 1─2 range (142.5 times more than their Righter counterparts).

To start things off, let’s rev into a test drive, but instead of the lowest 0─60, conservatives will be looking for highest from 1─5: Hyundai (3.0), Volkswagen (3.0), Nissan (2.8), Audi (2.8), Subaru (2.5), Honda (2.0), Chrysler (2.0), Ford (1.8), GM (1.3), Toyota (1.0), Lexus (1.0).

After revving off the showroom floor, here ‘s how the high-octane caffeine and baked goods corporations line up out of the blocks, with Starbucks not looking too stellar and Seattle’s Best looking worst to conservatives: Krispy Kreme (3.0), Tim Horton’s (3.0), Caribou Coffee (2.8), Dunkin Donuts (2.5), Seattle’s Best Coffee (1.0), Starbucks (1.0).

Now it’s time for the shopping carts to roll. Here’s a report card that wouldn’t make the late conservative Sam Walton very proud: Albertsons (3.0), Trader Joe’s (3.0), Kroger (3.0), Whole Foods (2.3), Costco (2.3), Target (1.8), Safeway (1.8), Walmart (1.3), Sam’s Club (1.0).

Well, we haven’t seen anything over 3.0 yet, so here’s a taste of what conservatives want to know, with everyone’s favorite chicken sandwich maker scoring the highest overall conservative rating of all corporations in the project: Chick-fil-a (4.3), Papa John’s (3.0), Domino’s (3.0), Long John Silver’s (3.0), Carl’s Jr. (3.0), Jamba Juice (3.0), Outback Steakhouse (3.0), Burger King (3.0), Cheesecake Factory (3.0), Arby’s (3.0), Orange Julius (3.0), IHOP (2.8), Wendy’s (2.8), Sonic ((2.8), Denny’s (2.8), White Castle (2.8), Chili’s (2.8), In-N-Out Burger (2.6), Panera Bread (2.6), Subway (2.5), Cracker Barrel (2.5), Baskin Robbins (2.5), Jack in the Box (2.5), Dairy Queen (2.5), Hardee’s (2.4), Applebee’s (2.3), McDonald’s (2.3), KFC (2.2), Pizza Hut (2.2), Taco Bell (2.0), Red Lobster (2.0), Olive Garden (2.0), Chipotle (2.0), Longhorn Steakhouse (2.0).

And here’s to hitting your favorite filling station after a quick bite: ConocoPhillips (2.8), Chevron (2.5), Valero (2.3), Shell (2.0), BP (1.9), ExxonMobil (1.9).

Ironically, the world’s largest corporations specializing in making kid’s toys aren’t as kid-friendly when it comes to the anti-family causes they fund: Toys R Us (2.8), Mattel (2.4), Lego (2.4), Hasbro (2.3), Crayola (2.3).

When Americans run to their retailers, the family values champion Hobby Lobby is the only conservative standout: Hobby Lobby (3.8), Jo-Ann (3.0), Bed Bath & Beyond (3.0), Radio Shack (3.0), Dillards (3.0), Zales (3.0), 7-Eleven (3.0), Michael’s (3.0), Aeropostale (3.0), Kay Jewelers (3.0), Rite Aid (2.8), Kohl’s (2.8), Barnes & Noble (2.5), JCPenny (2.5), Hallmark (2.5), Kmart (2.5), Sears (2.5), Dollar General (2.4), Walgreens (2.2), Office Depot (2.0), Ralph Lauren (2.0), Macy’s (2.0), Office Max (1.9), Gap (1.9), Banana Republic (1.8), eBay (1.8), Old Navy (1.8), Nordstrom (1.8), Marshalls (1.8), Best Buy (1.3).

And many apparel and accessories giants aren’t conservative in more ways than one: Cabela’s (3.5), Under Armour (3.3), Eddie Bauer (3.0), Christian Dior (3.0), Zales (3.0), Jockey (3.0), Aeropostale (3.0), Kay Jewelers (3.0), Ann Taylor (2.8), Hanes (2.8), Tommy Hilfiger (2.8), Van Heusen (2.8), Forever 21), New Balance (2.8), Russell Athletic (2.8), Fruit of the Loom (2.5), Ambercrombie & Fitch (2.0), Calvin Klein (2.0), REI (2.0), Ralph Lauren (2.0), Adidas (2.0), Gap (1.9), Banana Republic (1.8), Old Navy (1.8), T.J. Maxx (1.8), Dockers (1.5), Levis (1.5), Converse (1.5), Hurley (1.5), Victoria’s Secret (1.3).

In the sporting goods industry, there are a number of conservative good sports: Bass Pro Shop (3.5), Cabela’s (3.5), Remington (3.4), Under Armour (3.3), Dick’s Sporting Goods (3.3), Russell Athletic (2.8), Amazon (2.3), Adidas (2.0), NFL (2.0), REI (2.0), Converse (1.5), Nike (1.5).

Here’s how the home and garden products merchandisers stacked up, showing that ACE is the place for conservatives: ACE Hardware (3.5), John Deere (2.8), Toro (2.8), Black & Decker (2.8), 1-800-Flowers (2.6), Overstock.com (2.6), Lowe’s (2.5), Clorox (2.3), Amazon (2.3), DuPont (1.9), Dow (1.8), IKEA (1.8), Home Depot (1.8).

And when traveling away from home, some destinations are more conservative than others: Expedia (3.3), Priceline (3.0), American Airlines (2.8), AAA (2.8), Hyatt (2.5), United Airlines (2.4), Orbitz (2.4), JetBlue Airways (2.3), Hilton (2.3), Marriot (2.3), Southwest Airlines (2.3), Alaska Airlines (2.0), British Airways (2.0), Delta Airlines (1.5), US Airways (1.5).

Not so shockingly, most corporations putting out electronic gadgetry are leaning to the Left, with some exceptions: Vizio (3.0), Acer (3.0), Texas Instruments (2.3), Oracle (2.3), Adobe (2.3), Sony (2.2), Lockheed Martin (2.0), Dell (1.9), IBM (1.9), Cisco (1.8), Intel (1.7), Hewlett Packard (1.5), Xerox (1.5), Apple (1.2), Microsoft (1.2), Samsung (1.0).

And phone and Internet companies are witnessed making some liberal connections, as well, with one exception: The Sienna Group (3.7), Twitter (2.6), Verizon, (2.1), Sprint (2.0), AT&T (1.7), Comcast (1.4), Motorola (1.3), Facebook (1.2), Google (1.2), T-Mobile (1.0).

Health and beauty also tends to lean toward the Left: Chanel (2.8), Mary Kay 2.6), L’Oreal (2.4), The Body Shop (2.4), Colgate-Palmolive (2.3), Lancome (2.0), Clinique (2.0), Estee Lauder (2.0), Unilever (2.0), Calvin Klein, (2.0), Avon (1.8), Johnson & Johnson (1.5), Bath & Body Works (1.3).

Proceeds from everybody’s favorite foods don’t always go to everybody’s favorite causes: HoneyBaked Ham (3.0), Butterball (3.0), Godiva (3.0), Blue Bell Ice Cream (3.0), Russell Stover (3.0), Hormel (2.8), Tyson Foods (2.8), Hillshire Farms (2.8), Campbell’s Soup (2.5), Dr. Pepper/Snapple (2.5), Nestle (2.5), Hershey (2.4), Anheuser-Busch (2.2), Kraft (2.0), Ben & Jerry’s (1.8), General Mills (1.5), Kellogg’s (1.5), Tostidos (1.5), Coca-Cola (1.3), Pepsi (1.3), Mars (1.0).

And some financial corporations don’t put your money everywhere you want it to be: American Express (3.0), H&R Block (3.0), Capital One (2.8), Master Card (2.4), Discover (2.3), Fannie Mae (2.0), Sun Trust (2.0), Freddie Mac (1.8), PayPal (1.8), Morgan Stanley( 1.6), Citigroup (1.5), JP Morgan Chase (1.4), Bank of America (1.4), Visa (1.3), Ernst & Young (1.3), Goldman Sachs (1.0), Wells Fargo (1.0).

Originally published at OneNewsNow.com.

 The Truth Project

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

CLICK HERE for Details

Illinois doctors, nurses and medical personnel could be forced to make ethical choices between serving God and obeying the State with a bill being considered in the Illinois Senate.

Imagine for an instance that you’re a neurologist, and a patient comes to you for help with painful, paralyzing, never-ending headaches. You do everything you can to help him, but after months of experimental drug concoctions and nutritional experiments, the headaches worsen. Depressed and distraught, the patient decides he wants to end it all. He wants you to help him end his agony once and for all.

As a doctor, you’ve been trained and have sworn to “Do No Harm,” as Greek philosopher Hippocrates taught. Your pastor, church and the Scriptures say it is a mortal sin to end or assist with ending another human life.

But suppose that the state says that you must ignore your conscience or moral standards and deliver to the patient exactly what he wants. Your conscience and your religious beliefs are irrelevant. Or, it’s possible that a doctor refusing to assist with something as radical as suicide could be the basis for a lawsuit.

That’s what could happen with doctors, pharmacists, any medical personnel if SB 1564, State Senator Daniel Biss’ (D-Chicago) amendment to Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act, become law, says First Amendment attorney Thomas Brechja.

The proposal stipulates that a medical facility or physician must have an established protocol in place, printed to distribute to patients in response to any condition that the physician may find the patient seeking.

The legislation does not state that the protocol must include only legal recourses.

The idea of such a scenario may seem impossible to imagine, but that’s what Senator Biss’ plan in SB 1564 would set into place, Attorney Brechja said in an interview.

Even delaying the treatment by one day beyond what the patient demands could imperil an objecting doctor’s practice.

“If you’re impairing the patient’s health by delaying his or her access to a suicide pill, [for example], that may be ‘Brave New World,’ but we’re already living in ‘Brave New World,’” Brechja said. “Who knows what some court somewhere is going to decide. With this bill, you’ve certainly started down that path, and into the abyss.”

Once the law says a person’s conscience must yield to state or federal law, there’s no prediction where that may lead, Brechja said.

While Illinois’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows citizens to act upon their religious beliefs, Biss’ law would supersede the state’s RFRA.

Nationwide, some states’ conscience clauses explicitly cover abortion, contraception, sterilization, and the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatments.

Some clauses cover local conditions. For example in Oregon, a conscience clause describes a physician’s right of refusal concerning physician-assisted suicide, which is legal in that state.

Biss’ proposal contradicts the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, Brechja said, the first part of which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

The legislation would overrule the religious beliefs of American citizens that practice medicine and encumber their constitutionally-guaranteed free exercise of religion.

The medical personnel would be required to have on hand printed information that can be immediately distributed to the patient with referrals to the desired service.

“This is dangerous legislation,” Brechja said.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your Illinois state senator to ask him/her to please uphold religious freedom and conscience for medical personnel in Illinois.  Ask them to reject SB 1564

The Illinois Medical Society and the Illinois Citizens for Life lobbyists agree. They are opposing SB 1564.

Thus far, only the Illinois Social Workers have signed on in support of Biss’ legislation.  However, the bill is co-sponsored by State Senators Julie A. Morrison (D-Deerfield), Toi W. Hutchinson (D-Chicago Heights), Linda Holmes (D-Chicago), Kimberly A. Lightford (D-Chicago), Michael Noland (D-Elgin), Heather A. Steans (D-Chicago), William Delgado (D-Chicago) and Iris Y. Martinez (D-Chicago).

SB 1564 may be heard on March 17, 2015 in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Biss’ office said.

You can also sign up as an IFI Sustaining Partner!  Your on-going monthly support will go directly toward influencing our Illinois culture and government with Biblical values.

We cannot stress the importance of your monthly support.

Written by Star Parker

Why do we need a new federal law to protect those whose religious convictions see marriage as it has been understood for our whole national history? Because a war is taking place in America to delegitimize religion.

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act was introduced in the last Congress – in the Senate by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) with 11 co-sponsors and in the House by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) with 92 co-sponsors.

This legislation will soon be re-introduced in the current session and should be given priority by Senate and House leadership and passed. It is of enormous national importance.

The bill will protect individuals from discrimination, under federal law, so that they may be free to express and conduct their business according to their religious conviction that marriage is a union between one man and one woman and that sexual relations take place within this framework.

The bill only affects federal law, not state law. But it is an important step in the right direction of establishing a federal legal regime protecting those with traditional biblical faith and convictions regarding marriage, sex, and sin.

This law would not preclude anyone from choosing alternative lifestyles. What it would do is protect those who, because of their faith, reject those lifestyles from being forced to accept them.

Why do we need a new federal law to protect those whose religious convictions see marriage as it has been understood for our whole national history?

Because a war is taking place in our country to delegitimize religion and to use every means of legal aggression to make it impossible for those with traditional biblical faith to live according to their convictions in their public lives.

Take the case of Baronelle Stutzman, a Christian florist in the state of Washington.

When a friend came to her to request a floral arrangement for a same-sex marriage, Stutzman directed that individual to another florist for whom same-sex marriage and same-sex sexual activity is not a violation of religious conviction as it is for her.

She was found guilty of discrimination in a Washington State court. According to the court, “Stutzman cannot comply with both the law and her faith if she continues to provide flowers for weddings as part of her duly-licensed business.”

The court ruling exposes Stutzman to claims for damages and attorneys’ fees from both the state and the couple, from her business and personally. She is liable to lose her business, her home, and her savings.

Or how about Kevin Cochran?

After a 34-year career, Cochran was fired from his position as Atlanta Fire Chief by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed because he authored a Christian book, in his private time for his private use, in which, in one place, he condemns same-sex sexual behavior and marriage as sinful.

No charges of discriminatory behavior had ever been leveled against Cochran. In 2009 he was nominated by President Obama, and confirmed by the Senate, as U.S. Fire Administrator. In 2010, he returned to his position with the Atlanta Fire Department and in 2012 was named Fire Chief of the Year.

Cochran was simply fired for his Christian convictions.

Can it really be, now that homosexual activists have won victories to redefine the meaning of marriage, that anyone adhering in their public life to their traditional religious convictions breaks the law? Will one day a pastor preaching from the pulpit wind up in a lawsuit?

Can it really be that it is not enough for homosexual activists to legally do what they want? That they won’t rest until those who refuse to accept these lifestyles are destroyed?

This is not freedom and this is not America. This is a fight for the heart and soul of our country.

Politicians who give lip service to American freedom but who will not fight for the very values that make our freedom possible, the values on which our nation was built, don’t belong in positions of leadership.

The Republican-controlled Congress should do everything it can to pass the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act.

Star Parker (parker@urbancure.org) is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Originally published at OneNewsNow.com.

 The Truth Project

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

CLICK HERE for Details

In 2007, and with that same nauseating arrogance that has come to define him, then presidential candidate Barack Obama duplicitously quipped, “I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are just so ’90s. Their days are growing dark.”

Dark, indeed. America’s soon-to-be cultural-Marxist-in-chief would then spend the greater part of a decade waging war against our nation’s Judeo-Christian culture and heritage at levels, and in ways, unseen in our storied history. Today, his anti-Christian crusade continues unabated. In fact, and with less than two years left to complete his baleful conspiracy, this neo-pagan extremist has begun to rapidly accelerate his unravelings.

Chief among his targets for destruction are conservative and Christian organizations and individuals who pose a threat to his envisaged “fundamental transformation” of our once-Judeo-Christian nation. The Obama vision? A godless, Euro-socialist dystopia crafted in his own secular-humanist self-image.

We’re well on our way.

Still, even the president of the United States, alone, cannot destroy an entire nation from within. His sinister (yes, sinister) objective of a Christ-less society (Jesus is the real target here) is shared by many who, like Obama, labor under the darkest of spiritual deceptions.

To accomplish the larger “progressive” dream of unmaking America, this man, this cagey figure of whom we still know very little, finds himself flanked by powerful comrades in arms – by hundreds of equally extremist and very well-funded anti-Christian groups.

That’s why I was so encouraged this past week to see one of America’s largest and most effective mainstream Christian organizations fighting back. The Mississippi-based American Family Association (AFA) has developed and released a tremendous resource for the fair-minded American public. It’s an interactive “Anti-Christian bigotry map,” which identifies “more than 200 groups and organizations that openly display bigotry toward the Christian faith.”

The AFA has also announced that it will be monitoring these anti-Christian segregationists’ activities, reporting on those activities to the general public and further warning the tens of millions of Christian Americans of specifics relative to their radical campaign of religious cleansing.

“The website www.afa.net/bigotrymap includes an interactive map that identifies groups whose actions are deeply intolerant of the Christian religion,” notes AFA. “Their actions, for example, have endorsed efforts to silence Christians and to remove all public displays of Christian heritage and faith in America.”

Among the over 200 anti-Christian organizations exposed by the Christian watchdog group are some of the most strident atheist, humanist and “LGBT” extremist outfits in America. The ironically named Human Rights Campaign (HRC), for example, is listed among them. The HRC’s co-founder is accused homosexual pedophile Terry Bean. He was arrested a few months ago for allegedly raping a 15-year-old boy.

Another of the more high-profile groups listed is the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC’s propagandist activities have been linked by the FBI to anti-Christian domestic terrorism (something I long ago predicted would happen).

Also on the list are the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and many more.

“A common practice of these groups is threatening our nation’s schools, cities and states,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon.

“By threat of lawsuit, they demand that prayer be removed from schools and city council meetings, that Ten Commandments monuments be stricken from courthouses, and that memorial crosses be purged from cemeteries and parks,” he added.

“Families and businesses that express a Christian worldview on social issues often face vicious retaliation from anti-Christian zealots, and it’s time to call them out for their intolerance,” urged Wildmon. “Because of anti-Christian bigotry private business owners have been sued and forced to close their businesses.”

AFA is warning Christian Americans to be vigilant in that some associated with the 200-plus anti-Christian groups have actually “committed violent crimes against Christians and faith-based groups,” and that “physical and profane verbal assaults against Christians” have been, and continue to be, regularly used as “angry methods of intimidation.”

In 2012, for instance, SPLC supporter and homosexual activist Floyd Lee Corkins entered the Washington, D.C., headquarters of another of America’s largest mainstream Christians organizations, the Family Research Council (FRC), armed with a gun and a backpack full of ammunition. He also had 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches he intended to smear in the faces of FRC employees after he slaughtered them all (FRC had recently defended the food chain’s COO, Dan Cathy, for pro-natural marriage statements).

Thankfully, Corkins’ designs on mass murder were thwarted by FRC facilities manager and security specialist Leo Johnson. As Corkins shouted disapproval for FRC’s “politics,” he shot Johnson who, despite a severely wounded arm, managed to tackle Corkins and disarm him. (Of course, this is all impossible as it’s illegal in Washington, D.C., to carry a concealed weapon.)

Of Johnson’s actions, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said, “The security guard here is a hero, as far as I’m concerned.”

No doubt.

Court documents and FBI evidence later revealed, as many had suspected, that the SPLC was, while indirectly so, at least to some degree complicit in this particular act of anti-Christian terrorism. Corkins had used, and confessed to having been incited by, the SPLC’s anti-Christian propaganda.

Thankfully, the SPLC, the HRC and hundreds more of these anti-Christian organizations are now being called out and held accountable. Understandably, they’ve begun scrambling for damage control. They’re on the defensive.

And yet they continue to defend the indefensible.

Much metaphorical ink has been spilt over the un-American assault on the religious liberty of elderly Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman, who has withstood withering personal attacks and repressive government action with grace, courage, and steadfastness.

I’m reluctant to beat dead horses, but this ain’t a horse and it ain’t dead. It’s a donkey and it’s alive and kicking. Or maybe it’s a Dolos—the mythical Greek spirit of deception. Either way, it’s kicking the heck out of Barronelle Stutzman.

Despite what the mainstream press and homosexual activists claim, Ms. Stutzman did not refuse to serve homosexuals. In fact, she serves not only homosexuals in general but the specific homosexual man who sought her services for his faux-wedding.

Further, Ms. Stutzman serves all manner of sinners and serves only sinners because there exists no other kind of humans.

Ms. Stutzman refused to use her gifts and labor to produce a product that she has never produced before and which would be used for a celebration of that which Jesus says does not exist and which God condemns.

A homosexual union is ontologically different from a heterosexual marriage. A homosexual union is as different from a heterosexual union as men are from women. A homosexual union is, in reality, the anti-thesis of a marriage between a man and a woman.

Marriage has a nature—an ontology—which neither society nor the government that represents it creates. As the Left likes to point out, throughout history, marriage conventions and legal regulations have changed. But what the Left doesn’t like to point out is that throughout these tinkerings, one constant has remained: Marriage was recognized as a sexually differentiated union.

If marriage is something, if it has a nature that predates government, then government can jettison only so many constituent features from the legal definition of marriage before it becomes a meaningless, nonsensical, or empty legal definition with no relation to reality.

Virtually everyone, including liberals, believes marriage has a nature. Liberals would reject the fanciful notion that lawmakers create marriage out of whole cloth. For example, liberals argue that marriage is the union of two unrelated people who experience erotic/romantic (concept) love. They would disagree if someone were to argue that marriage is the union of three brothers who experience “storge” love or five friends who experience “philia” love. Liberals believe that the type of love family members or five good buddies feel for each other is not marital love.

In other words, liberals argue that marriage has a nature central to which is romantic/erotic love (as opposed to agape, philia, or storge love) and without which a union is not a marriage. Therefore, liberals implicitly argue that marriage has a nature which government recognizes and regulates but does not create.

Similarly, conservatives argue that marriage has a nature that governments don’t create. Conservatives believe that the central constituent feature of marriage is sexual differentiation, without which a union is not in reality a marriage.

It is no more hateful to argue that marriage is by nature a sexually differentiated union than it is to argue that marriage is by nature a union constituted by romantic/erotic love rather than storge love. And it is no more hateful to define marriage as a biologically complementary union than it is to define it as binary, which necessarily excludes polyamorists.

Barronelle Stutzman was not asked by a homosexual couple to create and sell a product to them that she creates and sells to other couples. She was asked to create and sell something she had never created or sold to anyone: an anti-wedding floral arrangement.

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute.

Civil Discourse, Liberal Education & Freedom

Over the past few years, I’ve had the privilege of speaking at college campuses across the country. Most of the schools, as you might imagine, are Christian institutions or schools with a more traditionalist or conservative worldview, such as Hillsdale College.

But there are exceptions. A few weeks ago, I was one of five people honored with honorary doctorates by The University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee. For those of you unfamiliar with the school, it’s affiliated with the Episcopal Church and it’s one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country.

Outwardly, everything about Sewanee cries “tradition”—the buildings, the beautiful 13,000-acre setting in the Cumberland Mountains and the convocation at which I addressed the student body. But politically and theologically, it’s fair to say that Sewanee is better described as “progressive.” So much so that a dear friend of mine was actually upset that I accepted the invitation.

In my convocation address I said that there is a move afoot on campuses “to marginalize and even to demonize voices of traditional and historic Christian faith. . . and that this is troubling . . . because to think we can have real and enduring freedom and real liberal education without robust voices of faith ignores history.” What’s more, these expressions of faith cannot be limited to the private sphere—they must circulate in the free marketplace of ideas.

I spoke of Os Guinness’ “Golden Triangle” of freedom, virtue, and faith, all of which depend on each other, which is why standing up for religious freedom is so vital for any healthy society.

And then I urged students to “listen respectfully” to those with whom they disagree, because “This is at the heart of liberal education and it’s at the heart of democracy and freedom.”

At the time I thought it went rather well. But then I read an opinion piece published in the student newspaper. It called my speech “one of the most offensive and disgusting” the writer had ever witnessed. It said that, “Beneath a thin veneer of reason and civil discourse,” I “continued to push [my] evangelical agenda.”

According to the writer, the response to my address in the audience was “shock” and “dismay.” Now the newspaper printed this without linking to my actual speech or even writing an article about the speech.

But it wasn’t only that writer. One of the clergymen on campus wrote me and told me while he was in “complete agreement” with what I said, some of his parishioners were “incensed,” even though they could not tell him why they felt that way.

Trying to get to the bottom of it, the clergyman checked with one of the other people honored, the great N.T. Wright, who told him that he found my remarks “quite unobjectionable.”

I’m happy to say that some people wrote to thank me for what I had to say and expressed their gratitude that their children got to hear what I had to say.

It would be disingenuous for me to claim that I was completely surprised by the negative reaction. Not because I set out to offend anyone, but because small “o” orthodoxy itself is increasingly offensive in some religious circles. But no one seemed to be able to say what in the speech bothered them. They just flat out were offended.

On a positive note, the fact that the leadership at Sewanee invited me in the first place speaks volumes about their commitment to free speech and civil discourse. My deepest thanks to them for giving me the opportunity to speak the truth in love to people who might disagree with me.

And whether or not some find that offensive, speaking the truth in love is the right thing to do; because if we grow silent out of fear that we’ll be shouted down or criticized, we’ll soon lose our right to speak freely at all. And that would be disastrous, not only for preaching the Gospel, but for maintaining a free and truly tolerant society.

A state judge ruled last week that Washington floral artist and grandmother Barronelle Stutzman must provide full support for wedding ceremonies that are contrary to her faith. The court claims that her faith-based decision to refuse to provide floral designs for a homosexual marriage violated Washington law. Read full story at OneNewsNow.

In essence, a judge has told the Christian florist she is entitled to her beliefs – but not to act on them!

The court also ruled recently that both the state and the same-sex couple, who each filed lawsuits against her, may collect damages and attorneys’ fees not only from her business, but from Stutzman personally.That means the 70-year-old grandmother may lose not only her business, but also her home and savings because she lives her life and operates her business according to her beliefs.

Barronelle is standing firm, despite the 3-year battle against anti-Christian bigotry. In 2012, when she declined to support a homosexual marriage, word spread quickly on gay social media. Before the couple would file a complaint, the state’s attorney general sued Barronelle’s business and, in an unprecedented move, Barronelle personally.

Through it all, she has remained strong in her faith and Christian resolve.

Take ACTION:  Barronelle Stutzman needs to know fellow Christians are standing with her and praying for her.

AFA has prepared this LETTER OF PRAYER SUPPORT for Barronelle. I encourage you to sign the letter to Barronelle and let her know she is not sharing the burden alone.

Please click HERE to sign the letter and share her story with others by forwarding this email and posting it to your Facebook page today!

Written By Billy Hallowell

Atlanta’s former fire chief who was terminated after he self-published a book that included his faith-based opposition to homosexuality has filed a lawsuit against the city in federal court. This act follows a complaint that his attorneys filed last month with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, citing unlawful discrimination.

Kelvin Cochran, who is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, believes that he was fired because of his Christian faith, arguing in the complaint that his freedom of religion was violated in the dismissal process.

“To actually lose my childhood-dream-come-true profession – where all of my expectations have been greatly exceeded – because of my faith is staggering,” Cochran said in a statement following the filing on Wednesday. “The very faith that led me to pursue my career has been used to take it from me. All Americans are guaranteed the freedom to hold to their beliefs without the consequences that I have experienced.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom is working with Jonathan Crumly and Garland Hunt, two allied local attorneys in the case, which was filed U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, according to a press release.

“This civil rights lawsuit is not only about restoring Kelvin Cochran’s constitutional freedoms, but the freedom of all Americans to live without fear of being fired because of their beliefs and thoughts,” David Cortman, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, told TheBlaze. “It’s ironic that some claim Chief Cochran was fired in the name of ‘diversity’ for having different beliefs than the city. That sounds more like compelled conformity and thought policing.”

As reported last month, the legal firm filed an official complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Cochran in January, alleging that he was discriminated against when Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed fired him. The newly filed lawsuit ups the ante on the situation, though, solidifying a formal legal complaint about the firing.

Cochran’s dismissal in early January followed controversy over “Who Told You That You Are Naked?” a book that he self-published in which he called homosexuality “sexual perversion” and compared it to “bestiality,” among other critiques. Activists reacted swiftly to the text, sparking involvement from the mayor’s office.

While Cochran has repeatedly said that he was terminated for his religious views, Reed has offered up a very different story, claiming at a press conference last month that Cochran’s judgement was at the center of his firing, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Full video: Fire chief sues city of Atlanta over unjust termination from ADF Media Relations on Vimeo.

“I, too, am a person of very deep religious faith … 1 Corinthians 14:40 says, ‘Let all things be done decently and in order’ and I want to make very clear in my judgement that was not done here,” Reed proclaimed. “Chief Cochran’s book … was published in violation of the city’s standards of conduct, which require prior approval of the ethics officer and the board of ethics.”

While Reed claims that he wasn’t consulted before the book was written and that Cochran, who spoke out about his battle with the city to religious groups when he was reportedly told not to, isn’t being persecuted because of his faith, the former fire chief disagrees.

Cochran claims Atlanta ethics officer Nina Hickson gave him verbal permission to write the book and that he had given a copy to Reed’s office last January, the Journal-Constitution reported.

Reed launched an investigation in November after it was revealed that the book discussed homosexuality in a negative light, though Cochran was found to not have discriminated against any employees during his tenure, but his termination followed.

Read more about the initial controversy here.

Originally posted at TheBlaze.com.

The Truth Project

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

CLICK HERE for Details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll use myself as a case in point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How could they possibly miss this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written By Napp Nazworth, Christian Post

A small, but elite group of Americans demonstrate signs of anti-Christian hostility, sociologists David Williamson and George Yancey claim in their new book, So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States?

In an email interview with The Christian Post, Yancey, professor of sociology at the University of North Texas, explained that Christians are fortunate in one sense, because those with anti-Christian hostility are small in number; but in another sense, they should be concerned, because those with “Christianophobia” tend to be powerful elites with influence in certain important areas, such as higher education.

The data for their research comes from a large national survey, the American National Election Survey, and interviews they conducted with members of liberal advocacy organizations.

The title of the book is a reference to how some Christians were put to death during the Roman Empire, and the phrase can be found on bumper stickers. Several of the interviewees used some variant of the “so few lions” theme when describing their attitudes toward Christians.

Yancey added that he and Williamson, associate professor of sociology at the University of North Texas, hope their book will make those who are hostile toward Christians more aware of their own biases so that they can correct them.

Here is a transcript of that interview:

CP: Why did you, and co-author David Williamson, want to research and write about anti-Christian hostility?

Yancey: There is a lot of literature on hostility toward many different groups but just about none on hostility toward Christians. Yet when we collected qualitative data from cultural progressive activists we quickly saw some of the unnecessary vitriol and fears within many of our respondents. We also saw the social status of those who exhibited this hatred and many of them would be in positions that allowed them to at least subtly act on their anger and fears. That motivated us to take a more systematic look at Christianophobia and speculate on how this phenomenon influences certain social aspects in the United States.

Another aspect that drove me to work on this project was that while I consistently saw evidence of Christianophobia in other areas of my life and in our society, unlike other types of intolerances, those who exhibited Christianophobia do not tend to think that they are intolerant. Usually those who do not like blacks or Muslims admit that they are intolerant but simply try to justify their intolerance. Those with Christianophobia tend to deny that they are intolerant but rather that they are fairly interpreting social reality. Envisioning themselves as fair and free of intolerance allows them to blame those they detest rather than recognize how their emotions have distorted their intellectual judgments.

By documenting just how hateful some of the attitudes are toward Christians, and who tends to have such hateful attitudes, I hope to bring Christianophobia into the light so that we, as a society, can discuss this social problem and how we might address bigotry in all of its myriad forms.

CP: You found that there’s a subset of progressives, or liberals, that have animosity toward Christians, or “Christianophobia.” According to them, what is wrong with Christians?

Yancey: In the minds of many of the respondents Christians are ignorant, intolerant and stupid individuals who are unable to think for themselves. The general image they have of Christians is that they are a backward, non-critical thinking, child-like people who do not like science and want to interfere with the lives of everyone else.

But even worse, they see ordinary Christians as having been manipulated by evil Christian leaders and will vote in whatever way those leaders want. They believe that those leaders are trying to set up a theocracy to force everybody to accept their Christian beliefs. So, for some with Christianophobia, this is a struggle for our society and our ability to move toward a progressive society. Christians are often seen as the great evil force that blocks our society from achieving this progressive paradise.

CP: Demographically, you found that Christianophobes are mostly white, wealthy, well-educated and non-religious. Is the fact that this is mostly an elite group good or bad for Christians? In other words, given a choice, would you rather be hated by elites or non-elites?

Yancey: Obviously all things being equal, an elite individual can do more damage to a person than a non-elite individual. But this does not mean that Christians have it worse than all other groups. We also have to factor in the number of people with Christianophobia. For example, more people have hostility toward atheists than toward Christians, but those individuals do not tend to be white or highly educated. Thus, they do not have the level of per-capita power of those who do not like Christians.

So is a group worse off if more people do not like them or if those who do not like them have a lot of social power, but there are fewer of them? Context matters to answer such a question. If you want to get elected to political office, then atheists are at a disadvantage since more people do not like them. But if you want to get a higher education, then you will run into a lot more people with power who hate Christians than who hate atheists.

CP: Can your findings help us understand the recent trend of “intolerant liberalism,” such as the examples The Christian Post noted in, “33 Examples of Intolerant Liberalism in 2014“?

Yancey: That is an interesting list and, to be fair, some of the examples are just political gamesmanship that you see from both Republicans and Democrats, such as the disinviting of Charles Murray. I am not even sure if Murray is a Christian.

There are other examples where it is less clear whether it is Christianophobia or something else, much like it is often hard for myself, as an African-American, to know when a person is acting due to racism or some other motivation. I think of the conflict over religious freedom laws in this way.

But there are some that I think are hard to defend, such as the policies at California colleges which have led to the removal of Christian groups. I have written about such policies and still fail to hear a solid reason why we should give an atheist the “right” to be the president of a Christian group. The only viable reason I can think is because this rule allows college administrators to express some degree of latent Christianophobia with a fiction of promoting equality.

Ultimately here is where the research that David and I conducted may be of service. We documented that some level of Christianophobia is present among certain powerful subcultures in our society. This helps us understand some actions in our society.

People do not like to admit that they are biased or bigoted but often those disaffinities come out in other ways. Because of the attention rightly paid to bigotry based on race, sexual preference, sex and even minority religion status, there is social pressure on those who take actions that may harm those groups to engage in introspection to make sure they are not being unfair.

I have seen a dearth of such introspection by those who make decisions that may harm Christians. I hope that this work will encourage such critical thinking among those with Christianophobia and perhaps help some to confront a bigotry they did not realize they possessed.

CP: Sociologist Peter Berger famously remarked that if Sweden is the most secular country and India is the most religious country, America has become a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes. At a Faith Angle Forum talk, he added, “many of the problems of America have to do with the fact that the Indians have become increasingly pissed off at the Swedes.” In some ways, your book seems to present a correlate to that: the Swedes “have become increasingly pissed off at the” Indians. Do you agree?

Yancey: I think that is a great way to think about it. I would put it this way: Because of their numbers the Indians historically had a lot of political and cultural power in our society. They may not be in the elite political positions but the Swedes in those positions could not afford to ignore what they wanted. The Swedes for years documented the excesses and biases of the Indians. Over time, they begin to look down on the Indians. But they also gained educational and cultural power and begin to ignore the concerns of the Indians. But the Swedes never considered that many of the social processes that produce bigotries in the Indians also can produce bigotries in themselves. They became quite adept at seeing social dysfunctions in the Indians but not in themselves.

While part of the reason for this book is to provide some insight to protect the Indians, I also see it useful for helping the Swedes engage in the introspection they need to deal with their own failings and to live by their own stated values.

 Originally published at ChristianPost.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temporal and eternal lives are at stake.