A federal judge in Madison, Wisconsin recently ruled that the housing allowance provided to ministers under the federal tax code is unconstitutional.  The suit was brought by the far-Left Freedom from Religion Foundation.  

The U.S. Congress created the “parsonage allowance” in the IRS tax code in 1954.  It stipulates that an allowance paid to a “minister of the gospel” for rental or mortgage payments on a home is excluded from gross income for tax purposes.

Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the exemption violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it “provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else.”

Crabb has a previous history of demonstrating hostility toward religion from the bench.  In 2010, she issued a remarkable decision that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional.  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals later overturned her ruling.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, says that Judge Crabb’s latest dictate reveals “a new level of supreme arrogance.”

“Society has long provided this tax housing allowance to clergy because of the tremendous benefit that churches in turn give to society,” Perkins says.  “Clergy help carry the burden of many social ills that would otherwise become the burden of taxpayers and the federal government.”

Dan Busby, president of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, says that the loss of the housing allowance would cause hardship to many ministers and congregations.

“For the most part, pastors across the country are compensated modestly for doing very demanding work.  So many members of the clergy have relied on this exclusion for decades.  It would be especially hurtful to retired clergy.”

In a move that indicates Judge Crabb realizes her latest decision may also be reversed, she has stayed enforcement of her ruling until an appeals court hears the case. 

Read more at ChristianPost.com.

Click HERE to make a tax-deductible donation to support IFI.

In hopeful news for religious liberty, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear two challenges to the constitutionality of the Obama Administration’s contraceptive and abortion drug mandate.

The High Court has accepted appeals of lower court decisions involving Hobby Lobby, the retail craft store chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a custom cabinetmaker located in Pennsylvania.

The decision by the Supreme Court to hear these cases is of great consequence.  It signifies that a majority of the justices think that there is evidence that the  contraceptive and abortion drug mandate may be an unconstitutional imposition on the religious free exercise rights of business owners and religious institutions.

A major provision of the President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that every health insurance policy issued in the country must include a package of “essential benefits.”  The law delegated unilateral authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to determine what services must be considered “essential benefits.”

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (an avid pro-abortion advocate) subsequently issued a mandate that “essential benefits” would include full coverage (with no co-pays or deductibles) of any “contraceptive” drug or device approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  This includes the abortifacient drugs Ella and Plan B, which are oftentimes referred to as “morning-after pills” or so-called “emergency contraception.”

The HHS mandate includes a religious exemption that was narrowly drawn, and only applies to churches and their “integrated auxiliaries.”  It does not extend to non-profit Christian ministries and parachurch organizations, or to private business enterprises with a Christian mission statement, such as Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Woods.

“My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case,” says David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby.  “This legal challenge has always been about one thing and one thing only:  the right of our family business to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution.  Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”

A U.S. District Court had ruled against Hobby Lobby’s challenge to the mandate, but the 10th  Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision.  The 10th Circuit concluded that Hobby Lobby had a “reasonable likelihood of success” in demonstrating that the HHS mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  The Hobby Lobby corporation could have faced fines of approximately $1.3 million per day for failing to comply with the Sebelius edict.

In the Conestoga Woods case, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the company’s religious liberty challenge to the law, saying that “for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise.”  This position is contrary to that held by the Tenth Circuit and other courts who have considered lawsuits against the mandate.   Those courts have decided that corporations can be considered “persons” under the law when constitutional freedoms are at stake.

Conestoga Woods, which operates outside Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is owned by the Hahn family, who are members of the Mennonite faith.  In their filings, the Hahn family stated that they “object as a matter of conscience to facilitating contraception that may prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the womb.”

“The Administration has no business forcing citizens to choose between making and living and living free,” says David Cortman, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Conestoga Woods in the case.  “A government that forces any citizen to participate in immoral acts–like the use of abortion drugs–under threat of crippling fines is a government everyone should fear.”

The cases accepted were Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (13-354); and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (13-356).

Last week, the Family Research Council (FRC) issued a press release in which they publicly ask Illinois’s U.S. Senator Mark Kirk to apologize for his bigoted decision to cancel a U.S. Senate office building room reservation for our friends at the Rockford-based Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society,  a decision Kirk made at the behest of radical homosexual activists.

According to Kirk’s press secretary, Kirk cancelled the meeting because he “will not host groups that advance a hateful agenda.” The so-called “hateful agenda” was a discussion titled, “[W]hat might conservative Americans learn from Russia, Australia, and other nations about rebuilding a pro-family policy?”

Despite the out-pouring of calls and emails from his own constituents and the public appeal from FRC, Kirk has not responded.

In response to Kirk’s narrow-mindedness hostility toward pro-family conservatives, IFI’s Laurie Higgins wrote an article in which she points out:

Sen. Kirk thinks that it’s hateful to believe that marriage is inherently sexually complementary, but not hateful to kill the unborn. To Kirk, cross-dressing and perverse sexual acts are moral goods and fighting for the rights of children to survive the womb and be raised by a mother and father are moral evils. What kind of man thinks like this? C.S. Lewis calls men like this “men without chests,” and Isaiah warns, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.”

FRC President Tony Perkins also had a strong statement in response to this foolishness:

Sen. Kirk’s decision is true discrimination, silencing anyone who doesn’t adhere to a politically correct view of sexuality.

We welcome open debate about policy differences on social issues. However, Sen. Kirk’s decision to cancel the event signals that he wants to silence those who disagree with him. We are encouraged by the many Illinois residents who have stood up in support of the Howard Center and its right to free speech and freedom of assembly.

Holding a different view of marriage and sexuality is not discriminatory – especially when all the social science research demonstrates the benefits of the natural family.

Sen. Kirk should respect our faith and our views, even if he doesn’t agree with them – instead of literally closing the door to any debate or discussion.

Take ACTION: Don’t let him off the hook! Please click HERE to contact Senator Kirk to express your opposition to his endorsement of homosexual “marriage,” his engagement in religious discrimination, and his subordination of the wishes of Illinois conservatives to the desires of homosexual activists.

You can also call his office in these locations:

(202) 224-2854  —  Washington D.C.
(312) 886-3506  —  Chicago
(217) 492-5089  —  Springfield

Click HERE to make a tax-deductible donation to support IFI.

Another day, another secularist attempt at religious cleansing.

The United States Supreme Court, which, with jaw-dropping irony, opens every session with prayer, recently heard – for the umpteenth time – oral arguments on whether local governing bodies can likewise open every session with prayer. (The U.S. Congress does it, too. Always has.)

The answer, of course, is a resounding “yes,” and, unless the high court goes completely off the rails this time (anything’s possible under its presently imbalanced liberal makeup), so it shall remain.

The case is Town of Greece v. Galloway. Hyper-litigious atheists – always on the prowl for a reason to be offended – sued the town of Greece in upstate New York for, you guessed it, opening its town meetings with prayer (you know, just like nearly every other legislative body in America has done since day one).

Despite overwhelming case precedent to the contrary – and putting the “activism” in “judicial activism” – the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals inexplicably ruled in favor of the atheists.

Notwithstanding, most objective legal scholars agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the lower court’s ruling. In light of our government’s well-documented prayer-based founding, as well as manifold rulings on past cases such as Marsh v. Chambers – which held that “legislative prayers” are “part of the fabric of our society” – even liberals on the high court will find it difficult, if not impossible, to uphold the 2nd Circuit.

Still, this case needn’t be a total waste of time and taxpayer money. Liberty Counsel, one of the fastest growing civil-rights firms in America, filed an amicus brief with the high court on behalf of the Town of Greece. The legal group has asked the court to, once and for all, clear the air on public prayer while, at the same time, making it less tempting for secularist radicals to file such frivolous and harassing lawsuits. (I recently discussed the case with Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, on “Faith and Freedom,” our national radio program. [Click here for video]).

In its “friend of the court” brief, Liberty Counsel has recommended that these nine justices take advantage of this otherwise obnoxious exercise in “been-there-done-that” and make liberty lemonade from atheist lemons.

Specifically, the group has asked the high court to use the Greece case as an opportunity to overturn, once and for all, the so-called “Lemon” test and adopt a new test, which provides that if a religious observance comports with history and does not coerce participation in a religious activity, then it would be deemed a permissible acknowledgment of religion.

Notes Mat Staver, “The ‘Lemon’ test, which the Supreme Court invented, has caused confusion for decades and is not consistent with the First Amendment. It is past time to abandon that judge-made rule and return to the actual words and intent of the First Amendment.”

Federal lawsuits require that a complainant have standing, which means they must demonstrate that they have been injured by an act of government. Over the years, the Supreme Court has loosened the standing requirement for Establishment Clause claims, allowing people to file suit merely because they are offended. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court ruled that religious activity must be diluted with secular influences. Described as a “ghoul in a late-night horror movie” by U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the “Lemon” test has wreaked havoc on religious liberty.

“The so-called ‘Lemon’ test allows mere offended observers to overturn years of religious tradition,” says Staver. “The court’s continuing reliance upon the ‘Lemon’ test has meant that the Establishment Clause, designed to prevent federal establishments of religion, has morphed into a weapon aimed at eliminating all vestiges of public religious expression,” he notes.

“Regarding the matter of prayer before public deliberative bodies, this is an easy question when the words and intent of the First Amendment control. The same Congress that approved the First Amendment voted to pay a chaplain to open every session with prayer. Under a real First Amendment analysis, this is a no-brainer,” concludes Staver.

Historical revisionists on the left, however, like to pretend it weren’t so. The ACLU’s promotional materials, for instance, overtly advocate unconstitutional religious discrimination: “The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion,” they claim.

This is abject nonsense.

As I’ve written before, the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause – a mere 10 words – is the primary tool the left misuses and abuses to accomplish its insurgency. Yet it remains abundantly clear in both scope and meaning. The Establishment Clause merely states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. …”

That’s it.

Let’s break it down. What do you suppose the framers of the U.S. Constitution – a document specifically designed to limit the powers of federal government – intended with the word “Congress”? Did they mean state government, municipal government, your local school board or third-grade teacher?

Of course not. They meant exactly what they said: Congress – as in the United States Congress.

Now, what did they mean by “… shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

Well, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson – often touted by the left as the great church-state separationist – answered this question. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was simply intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively “establishing,” through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).

As Jefferson put it: “[T]he clause of the Constitution” covering “freedom of religion” was intended to necessarily preclude “an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States.”

In a recent FoxNews.com editorial, Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of the 11,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas, Tex., summed up quite nicely what’s gone wrong with America’s church-state jurisprudence: “Activist judges have replaced the word ‘Congress’ with ‘government,’ ‘establishment’ with ‘endorsement,’ and ‘religion’ with ‘Christianity,’” he writes, “so that they can eradicate any Christian expression from the public square at the local, state, or national level.”

Indeed, how far from her godly founding has our beloved America strayed. With Greece v. Galloway, the U.S. Supreme Court has a rich opportunity to right past wrongs and to, once again, securely fix America to her historical First Amendment moorings.

“In God we Trust” can signify more than just our national motto.

It can, once again and forevermore, signify our national way of life.

Last week, U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) confirmed my reasons for vehemently opposing his election.  His obamaniacal act of hubris last week also reminded me of the emails I received chastising me for what some perceived as my wrongheaded, doctrinaire naïveté in opposing Kirk’s election.

Last Friday, Kirk, in league with homosexual activists, abruptly cancelled access to a U.S. Senate meeting room that had been reserved months ago by the Rockford-based Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society.  According to Sen. Kirk’s press secretary, Kirk cancelled the meeting because he “will not host groups that advance a hateful agenda.” And what is the “hateful agenda”?  The question posed on the meeting’s invitation was” [W]hat might conservative Americans learn from Russia, Australia, and other nations about rebuilding a pro-family policy?”  

The discussion panelists were Austin Ruse, President of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute; Allan Carlson, former professor of history at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan and president of the Howard Center;  Stephen Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute and an advocate for human rights in China; and Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Senior Fellow at The Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank of Concerned Women for America.

If Kirk considers these scholars hate-promoters, then logically he must call all orthodox Christian theologians hate-promoters for every contemporary orthodox theologian and every theologian in the history of Christendom has held the same views on the nature of marriage and the nature and morality of homosexuality as these panel participants.  

If Kirk’s Democratic opponent in the U.S. Senate race had won, the Republican Party would be working feverishly to find a candidate to challenge him. Of course, with the Illinois GOP polluted by the corruption and ignorance that plagues much of the Democratic Party, who knows what dubious character they may have trotted out and insisted Republicans support. The designation “Republican” is no guarantee of integrity, wisdom, or humility.

But with Kirk ensconced in the corridors of the U.S. Senate, (where he works tenaciously for every pro-homosexual bill including Illinois’ recent same-sex “marriage” bill), the Illinois GOP has little motivation to dethrone him. They couldn’t care less if he abuses his position to normalize sexual deviance while trampling the conscience rights of untold numbers of people. 

“Moderate” Republicans (hereafter referred to as immoderates) caterwaul that social conservatives are exclusive, narrow-minded, parochial voters who just don’t get the bigger picture. That bigger picture is centrally shaped, in the exclusive, narrow-minded, parochial view of immoderates, by “electability” and fiscal issues. Their big tent is really not so much big as it is blue-tinged. They don’t really want social conservatives to expand their scope of interests beyond the issues of prenatal rights, marriage, religious liberty, and the post-natal rights of children. They want social conservatives to abandon wholly those issues.

Conservatives, move to the back of the big immoderate purple circus tent and shut your flapping jaws about those irrelevant issues pertaining to sexuality, the First Amendment, and children’s rights—none of which (in the view of immoderates) have any substantive bearing on the public good.

In the meantime, the immoderates unctuously ooze that social conservatives should just let the big daddies who know best—people like Mark Kirk who solicited support from the baby-killing  industry when running for the U.S.  Senate—to run the country for them.

Sen. Kirk thinks that it’s hateful to believe that marriage is inherently sexually complementary, but not hateful to kill the unborn. To Kirk, cross-dressing and perverse sexual acts are moral goods and fighting for the rights of children to survive the womb and be raised by a mother and father are moral evils. What kind of man thinks like this? C.S. Lewis calls men like this “men without chests,” and Isaiah warns, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.”

Don’t you fret, oh ye of little conservative minds, your time will come—the immoderates hiss.  Just wait until men without chests have solved our debt problem and then they’ll end the forfeit—I mean, truce—on the “social issues.” Yessiree, once we get out of this $17 trillion debt, our lawmakers will work to restore the proper marriage laws, religious liberty, and children’s rights that they’re allowing to be trampled or, in the case of Kirk, actively and jubilantly trampling.

But does anyone really believe that in the future conservatives will be able to restore marriage laws or repeal the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) so that business owners will have the right to refuse to hire cross-dressers if men like Senators Mark Kirk and Rob Portman (R-OH) have been in Washington D.C. for decades using their power and friendships to shape the votes and views of colleagues?

If right-thinking Americans would spend just a little less time thinking about clever political strategies and just a little more time thinking about truth and courage, we might have a shot at preserving America.

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to contact Senator Kirk to express your opposition to his endorsement of homosexual “marriage,” his engagement in religious discrimination, and his subordination of the wishes of Illinois conservatives to the desires of homosexual activists.  You can also call his Washington D.C. office at (202) 224-2854.

As you know, the Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of individuals just like you.  Without you, we would be unable to fight the radical agenda being pushed by the godless Left.  Please consider chipping in $5 or $10 to help us promote family-friendly laws and policies. 

Click HERE to make your tax-deductible donation.

Two military chaplains have filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), alleging religious harassment during a VA chaplaincy training program.  Retired U.S. Army Major Steven Firtko and Navy Commander Dan Klender were participants in the Clinical Pastoral Education Program operated by the San Diego office of the Veterans Affairs Department.  The program trains and assigns chaplains to VA hospitals and medical centers in the San Diego area.  

The lawsuit claims that Nancy Dietsch, the program’s supervisor, repeatedly mocked and ridiculed the two chaplains for their Christian convictions.

The suit alleges that Dietsch told students they were not to quote from the Bible during classroom discussions, and that she did not permit chaplains to pray “in the name of Jesus” at public ceremonies.

On one occasion, Firtko says he made reference to the Lord’s Prayer in class, and Dietsch pounded on the table angrily, shouting “Do not quote Scripture in this class.”

Dietsch also allegedly derided Biblical standards on salvation, saying that there were many ways to heaven, and that no one religion is right.  Firtko says Dietsch further stated that if he held to his beliefs about evolution and homosexuality, he did not  “belong in the program.”

The lawsuit claims that Dietsch threatened to remove Firtko from the program unless he chose to renounce his Biblical beliefs.  When he refused to do so, he was placed on probation.  Firtko was subsequently notified in a letter that he had been dismissed from the program.  Klander left the program voluntarily, saying he was no longer interested in being subject to Dietsch’s harassment.

The lawsuit has been filed by the Military-Veterans Advocacy group on behalf of the chaplains’ sponsoring organization, the Conservative Baptist Association of America.  John Wells, a former navy commander and attorney for the group, says no solider should be subjected to anti-religious bigotry.

“No American choosing to serve in the Armed Forces should be openly ridiculed for his Christian faith.  Not only was the treatment these men received inappropriate, it was also a violation of the Religious Freedom Protection Act and the religious freedom guarantees of the First Amendment.”

This is just the latest episode unearthed by Fox News reporter Todd Starnes detailing hostility to the Christian faith in military circles.  And it is not the first time such anti-Christian bigotry has been reported in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The VA was the center of controversy two years ago when veterans groups were outraged over developments at the National Cemetery in Houston, Texas. 

Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion honor guards were told they could no longer make any references to God during funeral rituals.  The veterans groups said  they were also told they could no longer invoke God’s blessings in expressing condolences to the families of deceased veterans.

The orders came from cemetery director Arleen Occasio, who also ordered that the chapel’s bell chimes no longer be rung.  She then proceeded to remove the cross, the Bible, and the Star of David form the chapel, and convert the building to storage space.

During the Memorial Day ceremony that year, Occasio informed Pastor Scott Rainey that he would be removed from the program unless he promised to eliminate the name of Jesus from any of his prayers.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs subsequently entered into a consent agreement in federal court preserving freedom of religious expression during burial services at veterans’ cemeteries.

The VA agreed not to “ban, regulate, or otherwise interfere with prayers, recitations, or words of religious expression…”  U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes ordered Occasio not to dictate the content of prayers or speeches, “whether denominational prayers or otherwise.”

Read more at the Christian Post.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. ~James 1:27

Back in 1869, Baptists in Kentucky established a “Home for the Helpless,” seeking to serve orphans and other homeless children. Like so many other Christian churches and denominations of the era, Louisville’s Baptists saw the need for an orphanage to provide care for parentless and abandoned children, who before the establishment of orphanages were housed with adults in almshouses. The Home for the Helpless became the Louisville Baptist Orphans Home, and its charter established its mission to serve “orphan and destitute children.”

Those Baptists saw the orphanage as a Christian duty in response to a biblical mandate. The orphanage was a direct extension of Christian conviction, and it was operated under a board of Baptist control. In 1953, the Louisville ministry merged with the nearby Kentucky Baptist Children’s Home, and the two became the Kentucky Baptist Board of Child Care. A 1986 “Covenant Agreement” between the child care ministry and the Kentucky Baptist Convention called for the ministry to operate “in keeping with Christian principles and the dream of the founders of child care in Kentucky.”

That pledge is now very much in question as reports indicate that the ministry, now renamed Sunrise Children’s Services, is poised to change its hiring policies to remove any barrier to homosexuals and lesbians working as employees of the ministry.

The proposal came to light as the Western Recorder, the Kentucky Baptist newspaper, reported that the Sunrise board had discussed the matter in a specially called meeting held in August. That news, which stunned Kentucky Baptists, came after years of assurances from the ministry and its president, Bill Smithwick, that current hiring policies would remain in place. As the paper reported, “Up to now, Smithwick has consistently told the KBC mission board and convention messengers that Sunrise would continue defending its right to discriminate based on sexual orientation in on-going lawsuits.” Those lawsuits include an action filed by a lesbian worker who was terminated in 1998. That lawsuit was dismissed by the courts, but the terminated employee later filed a legal challenge to state funding of any institution that teaches religious beliefs. The State of Kentucky agreed to a settlement in the case, but Sunrise refused to accept the settlement, according to the Western Recorder.

When contacted by the paper, Smithwick refused to talk about the proposal and offered a rather belligerent response: “I don’t think Kentucky Baptists need to know something until there is something to know. Right now, my comment is, there’s nothing that Kentucky Baptists need to know, and all this [publicity] will do is hurt us.”

Subsequently, Kentucky Baptist leaders learned that  Smithwick’s August presentation to the Sunrise board had explicitly called for the employment policy to be changed. Smithwick set out several options for the board, making clear that retaining the policy would require the termination of additional employees. In turn, he warned that Sunrise would likely lose major secular funding sources in the business community, suffer further adverse publicity, “and close our doors.” He also told the board that he expects the federal government to mandate the employment of homosexuals in the future, and probably the near future. This is premised on the fact that Sunrise receives millions of dollars each year in government funding.

Smithwick then set out a second option whereby Sunrise would “tough it out until the Federal Government mandates employment of homosexuals” and “then change our employment practices after losing years of time and money spent to build our brand.”

Lastly, Smithwick proposed a third option: “Change our employment practice.” He declared that Sunrise “is not a church, or a religious institution” and argued that the organization cannot operate at current levels without government funds. Then, after arguing that Sunrise is not a religious institution, he assured the board that, even if the policies are changed, Sunrise would “continue to share the Gospel through Bible studies, worship attendance, etc. to residents and staff.”

Included in Smithwick’s argument was his personal statement that he would “rather homosexuals see the love of God through us than be denied employment by us.” He closed by offering the strange analogy of a missionary serving in Iran who wore a head covering out of respect for Muslims, apparently missing the point that no biblical command or biblical teaching is violated by wearing a head covering.

Kentucky Baptists were not alone in their shock over the Sunrise proposal. An attorney who had represented the terminated lesbian employee toldThe Courier-Journal (Louisville), “This is very surprising. They were very adamant that they wouldn’t hire gays and lesbians.” He is right, they wereadamant about the matter and, at least until the board votes later this week on Smithwick’s proposal, they still are—at least officially.

All that can change in short order. Bill Smithwick is absolutely right about one aspect of this matter: there is every likelihood that governmental coercion on these issues is coming. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is expected to pass in the U.S. Senate in coming days, and the Obama Administration has threatened to accomplish much the same by executive order. It is hard to imagine how an entity that describes itself as “not a church or a religious institution” can claim an exemption under such a legal mandate.

There is truth in the claim that Sunrise Children’s Services, along with thousands of similar organizations and institutions, will have to face a hard choice: serve Caesar or serve God. This becomes inevitable once an entity becomes dependent on financial support from the government. That is why Baptists have historically—and rightly—insisted on nonparticipation with government funding. Participation means dependency, as the financial situation of Sunrise Children’s Services makes clear. Smithwick told The Courier-Journal, “The Baptist support, totaling $1 million each year on a $27 million budget, is very much needed, but Sunrise cannot sustain itself without the partnership of state and federal and fundraising dollars.”

The choice faced by Sunrise, soon likely to be faced by a host of similar organizations, is to get smaller or get secular. The instant an organization takes government money it is transformed into an instrument of the state. What Caesar funds, Caesar controls. This is a hard lesson, and one likely soon to be learned by Christian institutions that have been taking government money and have grown dependent on those funds.

This will not end with children’s homes. A good many Christian colleges and universities have grown dependent on funds flowing through federal student aid programs and similar forms of government funding. What happens when they face a similar choice? The math will not work in their favor. A hard choice will have to be made, and we will soon see who will stand on conviction and who will act to save their funding.

The question does not stop with funding. Soon after Britain passed antidiscrimination legislation like ENDA, Christian adoption agencies were basically put out of business. They were given a choice to sever ties with their churches or go out of business. In Massachusetts, the legalization of same-sex marriage meant the end of the adoption work done by Catholic Charities, since they could not and would not violate their convictions. In Illinois, the work of Catholic Charities in foster care and adoption came to an end in 2011, and the admired organization gave up millions in government funding because they would not violate their convictions.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, himself a Catholic,  made the coercive power and intention of the state clear when he declared that a refusal to recognize same-sex civil unions as equivalent to heterosexual marriage for adoption and foster care: “They have a law in Illinois. It’s the civil unions law. I signed it into law. We’re not going back. Any organization that decides that because of the civil unions law that they won’t participate voluntarily in a program, that’s their choice.”

Some choice. In October of 2011 the state transferred more than 1,000 children from the care of Catholic Charities to secular agencies.

According to Baptist Press, only four or five of the 23 Baptist children’s homes associated with state Baptist conventions do not receive government funds. Bryant Millsaps, president of Tennessee Baptist Children’s Homes, told the news service that his agency had not accepted government monies in its 122 year history. And he explained why: Receiving government money is “almost like being dependent on a drug. You get hooked on it, and getting unhooked is very, very difficult. And in some cases it’s impossible.”

The board of directors of Sunrise Children’s Services faces a hard choice, but the choice is not just between several policy alternatives. They will decide to serve God or to serve Caesar. Paul Chitwood, executive director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, urged Sunrise to step out in faith, even if it means losing massive funding. He urged the agency “to dramatically scale back its work in order to be faithful to Scripture and to model biblical values in front of hurting children.” As for Kentucky Baptists, they will find a way to serve children and keep their convictions, assures Chitwood: “Either way, I am confident Kentucky Baptists will always minister to hurting children and will do so through a ministry with biblical values.”

When asked about the payment of taxes, Jesus famously responded, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). We dare not render to Caesar what belongs rightly and only to God.

This article was originally posted at AlberMohler.com.

The religious liberty death spiral continues.

One of the most dangerous and discriminatory pieces of legislation in modern times – the ironically tagged “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” or ENDA – passed the U.S. Senate on Thursday by a vote of 64-32. Ten Republicans disgracefully joined liberal Democrats in this effort to ultimately outlaw the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.

According to its leftist proponents, ENDA would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment intolerance. In truth, however, this legislation effectively would codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.

Writing in the Huffington Post, popular homosexual radio personality Michelangelo Signorile confessed that, of any potential ENDA legislation that might reach President Obama’s desk for his pledged signature, “none should include any religious exemptions” whatsoever.

If Signorile and other “LGBT” activists get their way, this would mean that churches, mosques, synagogues, religious schools, Bible bookstores, as well as any and every other business in America with 15 or more employees, would be forced, under penalty of law, to abandon the biblical and traditional-values viewpoint on human sexuality, and hire (and otherwise not offend) those who openly flaunt expressly sinful and demonstrably self-destructive sexual behaviors.

Though in its current form ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption that might – and I mean might – partially protect some churches and religious organizations (until they’re sued by “gay” activists), this so-called exemption would leave most others – such as the aforementioned Bible bookstores and many Christian schools and para-church organizations – entirely unprotected. It would additionally crush individual business owners’ guaranteed First Amendment rights.

Although U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) attempted to amend the bill to strengthen religious protections, his amendment was shot down 55-43. Unbelievably, he voted for ENDA anyway.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on the other hand, wasn’t even considerate enough to feign concern for the First Amendment. He promised homosexual pressure groups that Democrats would remove all protections for Christians and other people of faith on the flipside – after ENDA passed.

The homosexual news site Washington Blade reports that homosexual activist Derek Washington of “GetEqual” confirmed Reid’s promise. In a conference call with homosexual activists a week earlier, Washington admitted that Reid vowed, as goes any religious exemption, “the main thing to do was get the vote taken care of, and then deal with it later. As often times happens, you don’t get something perfect the first time around, you go back and fix it later, so that was basically his take on it.”

According to the Blade, “That account was corroborated by Faiz Shakir, a Reid spokesperson, who said the Democratic leader understands the concerns, but wants to get the bill passed first, then go back and address the exemptions.”

They’ve stopped pretending, folks. This is about criminalizing Christianity.

Still, there is a little good news. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has said that, for now at least, he opposes the law and will block it because it is both unnecessary and will result in “frivolous lawsuits.” He agrees with constitutional think tanks like the Heritage Foundation that have conclusively demonstrated the threat ENDA poses to First Amendment freedoms.

“The speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

ENDA represents government-sanctioned viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple. It is no different from forcing a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an “out and proud” adulterous “swinger.” It directly alienates the unalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.

During his second term, President George W. Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy on ENDA, highlighting its unconstitutionality: “[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”

President Obama, however – who never met a Constitution he didn’t violate – has vociferously endorsed the bill and promises to sign it into law should it pass both houses of Congress. This is in perfect keeping with his demonstrated belief that the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers are more of a suggestion than a requirement.

Chai Feldblum is a lesbian activist and sexual nihilist lawyer who, in the past, has publicly supported legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory. She is Obama’s recess-appointed commissioner to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As ENDA’s chief framer, Ms. Feldblum would be charged with its primary enforcement. This is the classic fox-guarding-the-hen-house scenario.

In the past, Ms. Feldblum has repeatedly and candidly summed up the mindset behind the bill. She has publicly stated that the battle between religious freedom and unfettered sexual license (aka “gay rights”) is a “zero-sum game,” meaning the two cannot possibly coexist in harmony. It’s a “winner takes all” approach.

When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Ms. Feldblum snapped: “Gays win, Christians lose.” And where Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of homosexual “rights,” Ms. Feldblum has admitted having “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Of course, her analysis is entirely arbitrary and completely unsupported by any reasonable constitutional interpretation or federal precedent. But to Ms. Feldblum, Comrade Obama and his kooky cadre of revolutionary advisers, little things like the U.S. Constitution and federal precedent are but obnoxious speed bumps on the fast track to a brave new world.

Speaker Boehner, you alone stand between these torch-wielding nutters and a highly flammable U.S. Constitution.

Please stand your ground, sir. Under Obama, liberty has suffered quite enough, thank you.

Note: Republicans voting for ENDA were U.S. Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Dean Heller of Nevada, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio, Jeff Flake of Arizona, John McCain of Arizona, Orrin Hatch of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

New York’s homosexual marriage and anti-discrimination laws are already taking a toll on Christian business owners, one of whom is currently before the state’s Human Rights Commission.

Robert and Cynthia Gifford own the 100-acre Liberty Ridge Farm, a business in Schaghticoke that hosts various events for children and for adults – including weddings. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms explains the problem the Giffords face revolves around that.

“Unfortunately, a lesbian couple approached them seeking to have their wedding on the property,” McGuire tells OneNewsNow. “I believe it was a setup as they recorded the phone conversation with the Giffords, and the Giffords told them no – and now the Giffords family, the farm owners, are facing a human rights law violation.”

The Giffords argue their farm is a private business on private property, and they believe their constitutional freedom of religion – specifically their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman – trumps state law.

“They have religious convictions against same-sex marriage,” McGuire explains, “and when New York passed its gay marriage law [in 2011] it required that businesses would perform and allow to be performed these same-sex ceremonies on their properties.

“But for the Giffords this is a matter of religious convictions as this is their home – and we don’t believe their religious convictions should have to be thrown out the window just because the state law has changed.”

A decision is expected from the administrative law judge within a few weeks and at that point either party can seek an appeal in civil court.

According to The Associated Press, the lesbian couple is no longer interested in using Liberty Ridge Farm as a wedding venue. Said one of the lesbians: “We just want to know that the policy is being changed to fit the laws so this doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

The lesbian couple filed the complaint against the Giffords on October 11.

Originally posted at OneNewsNow.com.

Written by Robert Gilligan

This week, the Illinois House of Representatives completed a mission started by its Senate counterparts in February by redefining what is outside of its authority: a nature-ordered union of one man and one woman, the institution of marriage.

Come June 1, 2014 marriage in Illinois will be defined as “between two persons.”

During floor debate, lawmakers threw out words such as “equality” and “fairness.” But one important term was glossed over — religious freedom.

It’s in the title of the bill, lawmakers said, the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.” They further noted that no church or clergy will be forced to solemnize any same-sex marriage or rent their parish or fellowship halls for any type of same-sex wedding recognition.

It’s all good, lawmakers assured faith groups and religious organizations. Your religious freedom is secure.

Where have we heard that before?

How about three years ago, when Illinois lawmakers promised during floor debate on civil unions legislation that no faith-based social service organizations would be affected. But within six months of civil unions becoming law, all Catholic Charities in the state were pushed out of their longtime mission of caring for abused, abandoned, and neglected children. The state refused to renew contracts for foster care and adoption services because of Charities’ religious belief of not placing children with unmarried couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual.

We know better this time. We know our religious freedom is not protected. And when we asked for more protection, our pleas for fairness were rebuffed and spurned.

Senate Bill 10 offers no specific protection regarding employment practices. If a current church employee chooses to “marry” a same-sex partner, the legislation offers no specific protection regarding the church being forced to pay — from funds collected every Sunday from faithful church-goers in the pews — for benefits for the “spouse.”

The legislation offers no conscience protections to health-care facilities, educational facilities, or social service agencies. So, faith-based hospitals, colleges, and universities that own and operate venues for rent are not protected.

Individuals and independent business owners whose religious beliefs do not condone same-sex marriage are also left in the dust. There are the stories about the photographers, bakers, florists, and bed-and-breakfast owners who have come under fire for refusing to serve same-sex weddings. What about the county judge asked to perform a same-sex wedding, or a public school teacher forced to teach about a family with two moms, two dads, or some other permutation?

They get nada.

Is this fairness, or tolerance?

As other states grapple with redefinition of marriage efforts, we urge them to learn from Illinois. Hold on to the natural order of marriage as one man and one woman joining together to form a union of body, mind, and spirit, with the intent and hope of creating children with whom to share their love.

Hold on to marriage as the only institution that ties children to their biological mother and father, and serves as the cornerstone of the family and society.

And hold on to the religious freedom that allows us to practice our faith beyond the four walls of a church.

Robert Gilligan is the Executive Director of the Catholic Conference 

As state lawmakers prepare to go back to Springfield for the second half of the fall veto session this week and as rumors intensify about a pending vote on redefining the institution of marriage (SB 10), citizens of Illinois need to know that people of faith have absolutely no religious protections in this radical policy proposal.  

People of faith should be free to live and work according to their beliefs, but in states that have passed same-sex “marriage” laws, citizens are being punished and persecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights.

In Iowa, for example, a Mennonite couple has been forced to counter-sue the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to prevent the agency from forcing them to perform same-sex marriages at their wedding chapel and pay damages to a homosexual couple they turned away.

Read more about this religious discrimination in this article by the Christian Post.

SB 10 would trump the civil rights and religious liberties of people of faith in Illinois. Enacting legislation that forces people of faith to surrender their deeply held beliefs in order to keep their jobs, maintain a state contract, or run a business or ministry is wrongfully discriminatory.  This is religious bigotry.

Please do not sit back and do nothing while lawmakers in the Illinois House work to pass religious discrimination into law.  Leftists are working overtime to achieve their ominous goal to redefining marriage and family and diminishing religious liberty in Illinois.  In fact, a trust source told IFI that over the weekend, a prominent Chicago politician has been pressuring (via enticements) members of the black caucus to switch their votes from “no” to “yes.”

Please pray for these members to stay strong and committed to truth.  Pray that they do not cave in to the enormous pressure and resources the LGBTQ lobbyists are bringing to bear.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to encourage your lawmakers to uphold marriage, family, and religious freedom in Illinois by voting against SB 10.  Call the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000 and ask your state representative to vote NO to the redefinition of marriage and family, SB 10.  Call your lawmaker’s office every day.  

Please. lift all of this up in your prayers this week.  

“Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.” ~Zechariah 4:6

 Please help IFI remain strong in this fight.
Please, click HERE to to support our work & ministry.

Thank you.

How exactly is discrimination defined, and what constitutes discrimination? These are questions that are not merely hypothetical or conjecture anymore, these are serious questions that every person must definitively answer.

The culture is currently trying to define the word discrimination for us and mandate certain actions and words as inherently discriminatory. For example, simply expressing a view of marriage that does not include homosexuals has now been labeled discriminatory. For this reason we can conclude that every person adhering to a biblical definition of marriage is a bigot.

Now, exactly how far that label extends remains to be seen. Will those advocating for marriage redefinition demand acceptance of polygamy, polyamory, and pedophilia? If they don’t, aren’t they guilty of the same discrimination they now accuse traditional marriage supporters of?

What about religious rights in the battle to define discrimination?

Many in America are vehemently opposed to ObamaCare because it forces them to violate their religious convictions and pay for abortion drugs and services in their insurance plans. Many small business owners and employers are suing the government to be exempt from the ObamaCare HHS mandate in order to live by their deeply held religious convictions. In a majority of the cases the employers are winning and not being forced to comply with the HHS mandate. In a few cases however, judges have decided that the religious convictions of the owners don’t matter nearly as much as compliance. Indeed, one judge actually uttered these words:

“…sometimes religious freedom has to yield to the greater good.”

I’m unclear of what greater good could exist beyond living in accordance with one’s religious convictions. But the chill resulting from these words is clear as the judge indicated that religious convictions could one day be brought into alignment with politically correct government policy.

I can’t help but wonder if business owners have a legitimate claim of religious discrimination for being forced to comply with a mandate that violates their faith. If religious freedom doesn’t exist in America, is any other freedom safe?

This also begs the question of whether or not a pastor fired from his church for performing a same-sex ceremony will file a discrimination claim. A recent article states:

The Rev. Ken Kline Smeltzer…[a] Pennsylvania-based faith leader in an interview with the Centre Daily News said he was terminated by his church for marrying two men back in August. Smeltzer declined to give the church’s name and said that ‘a few things have to play out’ before he can do so, but his confirmation will certainly spark some debate about the right of churches to hire and fire on these grounds.”

This presents a problem for churches. If same-sex “marriage” is legalized, it will be no doubt considered illegal to “discriminate” against homosexuals by refusing to perform a wedding ceremony. If that is the case churches will become the very real target of lawsuits by homosexuals seeking to be married. Will churches then lose the right to refuse to marry a couple on religious grounds? What about pastors that refuse to marry a divorced person on religious grounds? Or those that refuse to marry co-habiting couples on religious grounds.

It’s not just a slippery slope into marriage redefinition; it’s a slippery slope into the loss of religious freedom. If an action is deemed acceptable and any opposition to it is now considered discrimination, can there be a defense stronger than the discrimination claim?

At this point we have to answer no to the question. The fact that a photographer in New Mexico, florist in Washington, baker in Colorado and others are being sued for discrimination after refusing their services to homosexuals based on religious convictions says that claims of discrimination trump religious freedom. Imagine how much stronger the discrimination argument will be if homosexual marriage is redefined for all 50 states?

Another example comes from Azusa Pacific University in California where a female professor has been fired from the evangelical college for announcing her transition to being a man. It’s unclear at this time if a lawsuit is planned on the part of the fired professor, but one has to wonder whether such an action by a college or church will even be legal in a few years.

If certain lifestyles and actions are deemed legal and appropriate, and opposition to them is labeled discrimination, the religious freedom of others will be in jeopardy. Right now, thanks in part most recently to the Hosanna Tabor case, the government cannot interfere with a churches ability to hire and fire pastors based on their religious doctrine and convictions. However, such freedoms are in danger when the government begins deciding what is and is not discrimination.

The question now is, are we going to sit back and let those advocating for marriage redefinition drive the conversation? If we don’t care about our religious freedoms they will certainly be taken. If we do care, now is the time to engage in the conversation and explain the essential nature of religious freedoms to all other freedoms. Don’t let the government define discrimination or they will most certainly seek to define religious freedom as well.

The U.S. Army has admitted it was wrong to use false information in a recent training module that named AFA as a “domestic hate group.” The lie had been widely disseminated by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). 

Army spokesman Roy A. Rolan Sr. responded to a Jackson, Mississippi, reporter and said soldiers who attended an October briefing at nearby Camp Shelby will be notified that the SPLC’s “hate group” label is in error and should be discounted for what it is — false and deceitful. 

The Army’s statement said a trainer created the slide portraying AFA as a “hate group” without Army approval, and it was not produced by the Army and “does not reflect its policy or doctrine.” Read the U.S. Army’s full statement here.

AFA’s initial concerns have been addressed, but work remains to be done. We have documented cases of this type of false assertions against AFA being used in military training resources on other bases.

It is critical that the Pentagon and those who train our military personnel be clearly instructed to discount and refrain from using any information that they have not verified, especially when it comes from groups such as the SPLC, which is well known for spreading falsehoods.

I deeply appreciate your prayers and support.  I assure you, your AFA will continue to vigilantly defend religious freedom for those who serve in the military. 

An U.S. Air Force sergeant has filed a discrimination complaint after being relieved of his duties because of his religious beliefs about the institution of marriage.  Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk says he was subject to disciplinary action because he refused to voice support for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions. 

Monk, who has served in the Air Force for 19 years, had been stationed at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.  His most recent commander, Major Elisa Valenzuela, is a professed lesbian.   Sgt. Monk says Major Valenzuela demanded to know whether he agreed that opposition to homosexual “marriage” constitutes discrimination.  Sgt. Monk declined to answer the question, saying he was concerned that sharing his true beliefs would result in adverse treatment.  Major Valenzuela then told Sgt. Monk that support for homosexual “marriage” was now military policy, and that service members are not permitted to disagree with it.  She then informed Monk that he was relieved of his duties and banned him from returning to his building on base. 

A military spokesman defended the action, saying that Air Force policy forbids language “degrading or demeaning” a person because of their “sexual orientation,” including any speech suggesting that homosexual conduct is immoral. 

Jeff Mateer, general counsel for the Liberty Institute, says their legal organization is receiving a stream of complaints from service members who are being reprimanded for their religious beliefs.  “Hostility to religious faith in the military is rampant and increasing at an alarming rate,” Mateer says.  “Unlike Sgt. Monk, they do not want to come forward publicly due to fear of retribution, which would destroy their military careers.” 

Sgt. Monk says he made the decision to contest the disciplinary action when he shared a Bible lesson with his sons about the importance of standing up for one’s beliefs.  He said he felt he needed to lead them by example in his own predicament. 

Air Force officials have retaliated against Monk for his complaint by examining formal charges against him.  He is now being investigated for making false statements in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Should charges be pressed against him, Sgt. Monk could be subject to court martial. 

You can send a message of support to Sgt. Monk by clicking this link:  Support Sgt. Monk           

Read more HERE. 

Two Illinois members of Congress have joined as sponsors of legislation to protect citizens who believe in natural marriage from religious discrimination by the government.  U.S. Representatives Randy Hultgren (R-Geneva) and Daniel Lipinski (D-Chicago) have signed on as co-sponsors of the measure, known as the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (H.R. 3133).  This bill was introduced by U.S. Representative Raul Labrador (R-ID) on September 19, 2013.

Should it become law, the bill would prohibit the federal government from taking any adverse action against any person because that person believes that “marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved for such marriage.”

Much of the impetus for the bill was prompted by actions by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to harass non-profit Christian and conservative organizations  who support traditional values.  The bill would prevent the IRS from denying or revoking tax exemptions or deductions due to a person or group’s advocacy for traditional marriage.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, commended the legislators for their action:  

“This bill affirms that the federal government cannot target a person for their religious views in support of traditional marriage.  Congress needs to make clear that federal authorities cannot punish individuals for their religious beliefs.”  

Read more HERE.