The scandal surrounding the targeting of Christian and conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service has taken a new twist.  A non-profit pro-life group in Texas has released an audiotape conversation in which an IRS agent berated the group for its religious activities. 

The group Pro-Life Revolution has been seeking approval of its tax-exempt status for more than two years.  In March of last year, its President, Ania Joseph, recorded a phone conversation with IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Sherry Wan. 

In that conversation, Wan told Joseph that “prayer and evangelization at abortion clinics” was neither an educational nor charitable activity. 

“You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else…You cannot reach out to a woman…I don’t believe you need the right to do this.” 

Wan’s lecture to the pro-life leader included the statement that opposition to abortion is motivated by “blind, emotional feelings.” “You can’t put something on a website and ask people to take action against the abortion clinic.” 

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, says that the latest revelations are the most disturbing accusations to come to light in the IRS scandal. 

“The IRS is a tax collector–it shouldn’t be allowed to be the speech and belief police.  The current scandal has exposed the abuse of power that characterizes this agency and threatens our fundamental freedoms.” 

“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” Stanley adds.  “We cannot allow the IRS to ruthlessly dictate against legitimate non-profits simply because it does not approve of the organization’s mission.” 

The Air Force and its Secretary, Michael B. Donley, have created the most hostile anti-religious environment in the history of the United States military.

Under Donley, Air Force leaders have repeatedly caved to the demands of the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers (MAAF). Behind MAAF leader Mikey Weinstein’s malevolent demands, the Air Force can’t seem to rid itself of anything religious fast enough.

The most recent evidence of this came just last month. Within one hour of hearing from Weinstein, the Air Force caved to his demand to remove an inspirational painting from a base dining hall because it included a reference to Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

By taking his orders from Weinstein, Secretary Donley’s anti-religious actions clearly demonstrate that his leadership style undermines the moral fitness of our nation’s Air Force.

• June 2013 – Air Force personnel received a memo ordering them to not look at news stories related to the rash of President Obama’s recent scandals. Although not specifically religious, it does infringe on liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
• May 2013 – An Air Force Base was ordered to remove a video tribute to First Sergeants because it mentioned the word “God.”‘ You can see the video here.
• April 2012 – The Air Force removed the word “Bible” from its list of items to be provided in Air Force-approved lodging facilities. This will almost certainly result in the eventual removal of Bibles themselves from Air Base hotels or any hotel that does business with the Air Force.
• February 2012 – The Air Force removed the word “God” from the logo of its Rapid Capabilities Office after receiving a threatening letter from MAAF.
• November 2011 – The Air Force Academy dropped “Operation Christmas Child“ after a single complaint from an atheist group. The Air Force apologized to the atheists and ordered chaplains to no longer use official mail to promote the charity.

Under Secretary Donley, the Air Force has become an easy target for atheists, because they know he and the Air Force will cave to their anti-religious, anti-Christian demands without a fight.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to urge your member of Congress to investigate Secretary Michael Donley’s anti-Christian bigotry.  The Air Force has caved to every whim of anti-Christian zealots and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley is content to allow every vestige of religious faith to be silenced.

Secretary Donley has lost his effectiveness as a respectable military leader. As long as he serves his position, our nation’s Air Force will continue to recklessly attack religious freedom. It is time for him to resign.

Urge your members of Congress to investigate Secretary Michael Donley for threatening the morals, beliefs and religious faith of those who protect our freedoms.

Originally posted at AFA.net. 

One consequence of the homosexual political agenda is the loss of religious liberty and freedom.  I am still amazed that almost no one commented on the First Lady’s nationally televised convention speech on September 4^th, 2012 in which she clearly said that it was the objective of the President to see that homosexuals “can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with whom they love.” 

(Only churches have altars for weddings.  If these people will force Christian colleges and even a Bible publishing company to fund abortion, why would they respect the beliefs of churches in regard to same-sex marriage?  There’s a great line in the western Open Range in which Robert Duvall tells Kevin Costner, “Most times, if you listen to a man, he will tell you his bad intentions.”)

Churches are in the cross-hairs of the activists seeking to change America and move her away from her foundations.  One of those changes may come in a month when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its rulings on same-sex marriage and the ability of voters and elected officials to protect it. 
 
That ruling will be one of the biggest news events of the year.  Every citizen seated in a church pew the following Sunday will have heard exactly what the media wants them to hear about this issue.
 
Before the courts and pop culture have an opportunity to promote their agenda, maybe people should hear what God actually says about marriage.  This is the intent of the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2013.   They are asking pastors all across America to dedicate Sunday June 9th to educating their congregations on the Biblical meaning and purpose of marriage.  This is particularly important in Indiana where Hoosier voters may be allowed to decide on the importance of marriage and the necessity of it being a gendered institution including a husband and a wife.

Sunday, June 9^th is a good opportunity for a marriage sermon as it will come about two weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and a liberal media interpretation that will dominate the news coverage.  

If you would like to learn more about Pulpit Freedom Sunday, click HERE and/or watch the video below:

Thomas More Society Cites Grave Bipartisan Concerns

On Wednesday afternoon, Thomas More Society attorneys issued a letter to members of the Illinois House of Representatives warning that Illinois’ pending genderless marriage bill (SB 10) provides a disaster for religious liberty, no matter which side of the same-sex marriage debate that one supports.

The letter states: “Law professors on both sides of the marriage issue agree that Senate Bill 10 provides the worst religious liberty protections of any same-sex marriage bill in the country.”

The letter highlights that other states which have legalized same-sex marriage, such as Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington, have recognized the importance of protecting religious liberty and have added specific language in their respective same-sex marriage bills to protect “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges…related to the solemnization of a marriage.”   

The letter warns that, should the current same-sex marriage bill be voted into law, Illinois’ religious hospitals, religious schools, organizations such as the Knights of Columbus, and businesses owned by people of faith would face an onslaught of court battles: “SB 10 will force religious people and organizations into years of legal fights, likely against the Illinois government, to defend their rights to practice their faith.” 

“SB 10 would make Illinois the most hostile state in the country to the religious freedoms of people of faith,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel of the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm. “SB 10 would generate years of litigation and cause those who faithfully practice their religion to be mislabeled as ‘discriminators,’ stripped of government benefits, and subjected to fines and penalties simply because they abide by their sincerely held beliefs. Legal scholars have urged on a bipartisan basis that SB 10 in its current form be rejected. Illinois legislators should heed this bipartisan call.” 

The letter cites numerous examples of businesses and organizations that are being sued around the country for actions taken in compliance with their religious beliefs. The letter concludes by stating that, “Instead of being a ‘Religious Freedom’ bill, SB 10 will devastate the liberties of individuals, businesses, religious organizations, and religious charities all across our State of Illinois.” 

Take ACTION:   Click HERE to contact your Illinois Representative and tell him/her to oppose SB 10!  Even if you have previously contacted your representative, PLEASE DO SO AGAIN. Tell your representative in no uncertain terms that you want him or her to oppose the radical effort to redefine marriage and family.

About the Thomas More Society — The Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit public interest law firm whose mission is to restore respect in law for life, marriage, and religious liberty. Headquartered in Chicago, the Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro-bono professional legal services from federal, state, and local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. www.thomasmoresociety.org

In a chilling new Federal Bureau of Investigation interrogation video just released, Floyd Lee Corkins, who stormed the Family Research Council’s (FRC) headquarters on August 15, 2012 and started firing, says that he picked his target from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) website. Corkins pled guilty to three charges, including committing an act of domestic terrorism while armed – the first such charge in Washington, D.C.

Corkins entered the lobby armed with a loaded semi-automatic pistol, 100 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He started firing at FRC’s building manager Leo Johnson who heroically tackled the shooter after a gunshot shattered his arm.

The partial transcript and video follow:

FBI: Now how did you . . . This building, this organization. Did you . . .

FBI: Did you, how did you find it earlier? Did you like look it up online?

Corkins: It was a uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh anti-gay groups

Corkins: I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website 

Corkins: Stuff like that

LINK TO VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgjI3wavx-I&feature=player_embedded

Corkins has said that, “I wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face … to kill as many people as I could.” His act of terrorism has put sunlight on SPLC, which has targeted a wide swath of Americans for standing up for traditional values, most often Christian and conservative.

“The SPLC’s reckless labeling has led to devastating consequences,” said FRC President Tony Perkins. “Because of its ‘hate group’ labeling, a deadly terrorist had a guidemap to FRC and other organizations. Our team is still dealing with the fallout of the attack, that was intended to have a chilling effect on organizations that are simply fighting for their values.”

“The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has now been linked to domestic terrorism in federal court, should put an immediate stop to its practice of labeling organizations that oppose their promotion of homosexuality,” continued Perkins.

“In a civil society, shutting down debate is not how reasonable people and organizations operate. Intimidating and bullying others shreds the ‘ordered liberty’ of which our Founders wrote and for which they advocated, and places all of us in jeopardy of losing our sacred rights as militant extremists claim the public square exclusively for themselves,” concluded Perkins.

Rev. Tom Koys, pastor of St. Bartholomew Catholic Church in Chicago, offered the following opening prayer this morning for the Illinois House of Representatives:

I call upon the Divine Being, and I ask all here present to turn your minds and hearts to the God who guides you as a public servant of this great State of Illinois. 

God, creator of the universe, Oh God, who set your angels at the gates of paradise with their fiery swords, Oh God, who loved your disobedient children enough to become one of us, showing us how to live…  be with the men and women who, through their office become the voice of conscience for the people of Illinois. 

Bless each and every member here, and their constituents back home.  Be with them in their moments of anxiety and be their peace in the loneliness of leadership.  Help us all to see that monies, voluntarily given by the people are more suitable for building our hospitals, schools and bridges than monies obtained through involuntarily imposed heavier and heavier taxation.  Help us all to see that the very systems government creates to free people from poverty can also bankrupt our State, leaving the government with little resources to help anyone.   Help us all to see that even death itself is part of your plan for your children and help us to see that only in heaven will “risk factors” be reduced to absolute zero. 

God, I ask that you strengthen especially those citizens who will suddenly become criminally liable for the simple act of standing up for the sacredness of the conjugal union of matrimony, if certain laws are passed.  Not because we are trying to force anyone to something against their wills, but because the state would be forcing us to do something against our wills.  Lord, I pray for my fellow priests and all other clergy persons, may we have the courage to obey God rather than humans if necessary and accept our newly created status as law breakers in this nation we love so dearly and endure whatever persecutions that will result. 

I offer this prayer in humility, with due respect and with hope in your Divine Providence,  AMEN. 

Written by Jim Campbell

Disagreements and projections abound in the dialogue about marriage and its redefinition to include same-sex couples. But both sides agree on one issue: redefining marriage significantly jeopardizes religious freedom—the first liberty upon which our nation was founded.

The convergence of several factors creates this unavoidable clash between religious liberty and redefining marriage. First, the vast majority of religious adherents in America believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And because marriage is a core component of religious convictions—indeed, many spiritual traditions treat it as a holy sacrament—people of faith are not likely to change or disregard their views on this central question of conscience.

Second, marriage permeates our law and culture. Thus countless situations will require all citizens, including those who are religious, to affirm or facilitate a fundamentally redefined understanding of marriage.

Third, if the government declares that same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions equally constitute marriages, the law punishes and stigmatizes as “discriminatory” and “irrational” those who publicly espouse a view or conduct themselves in a manner that adheres to the traditional understanding of marriage.

History illustrates the persecution of, and an absence of tolerance for, those who engage in what the law has proclaimed to be irrational discrimination. The freedom of the religious faithful—particularly their freedom to participate in the public square—will thus be sacrificed in a society whose laws embrace a redefined view of marriage.

Legal scholars who favor redefining marriage agree that this religious-liberty conflict is real. Chai R. Feldblum, a law professor at Georgetown University and current EEOC commissioner, believes that advocates for redefining marriage have incorrectly “downplayed the impact of such laws on some people’s religious beliefs.” Renowned religious-liberty professor Doug Laycock and many others agree that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious freedom are inevitable.

This crisis of conscience is not just a matter of legal theory; it is confirmed by real-world examples.

Laws redefining marriage have forced religious organizations to shutter their foster and adoptive ministries because they are unable to place children with same-sex couples. Among other examples, this senseless religious intolerance occurred immediately following the redefinition of marriage in the District of Columbia, even though many other foster and adoption agencies were willing and able to place children with same-sex couples.

After a court redefined marriage in Massachusetts, public schools began teaching young elementary-school students that same-sex marriage is worthy of celebration. Parents who objected for religious reasons asked to excuse their children from these lessons. Yet a court denied parents even this modest religious protection, stating that because “Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.”

Redefined marriage laws have also compelled organizations with deeply held beliefs about marriage either to recognize the same-sex unions of their employees or to stop providing spousal benefits to all employees. In the District of Columbia, a Catholic organization terminated benefits to all of its employees’ spouses just so that it could continue to operate consistently with the dictates of its faith. And in New York, an employee of a Catholic hospital sued her employer demanding that it recognize her same-sex relationship and provide benefits to her partner.

Additionally, laws redefining marriage have also forced public servants with sincere religious convictions about marriage to resign from their positions. In New York, at least two municipal clerks suffered this fate. Similarly, in Saskatchewan, the courts refused to safeguard the conscience rights of marriage commissioners, despite the fact that the province had more than 370 marriage commissioners, most of whom did not object to presiding over a same-sex ceremony.

All of these examples, which are but a few of the many that could be cited, illustrate the bleak prospects for conscience rights and religious tolerance in a culture that embraces genderless marriage.

Sound logic, scholarly consensus, and recent experience all demonstrate that redefining marriage presents a significant threat to religious liberty. We as a society thus face a crossroads and must decide whether to change marriage to satisfy the demands of a few despite sacrificing the religious freedom of many. We should collectively choose to affirm marriage, decline to deviate our course, and continue along the road where religious liberty—a bedrock of our civilization—may flourish.

NOTE: This article was originally publish on Townhall.com, and is the fourth column in a series of columns related to National Marriage Week, Feb. 7-14, 2013. The third column is available HERE.

A middle school student in New York who was told she could not include religious references in her graduation speech is appealing an adverse judicial decision. 

The student, whose name has been withheld, was the co-president of her 8th grade graduating class in the Taconic Hills Central School District in Craryville, New York.  She chose to include a blessing at the end of her address, which school officials decided “sounded too religious.” 

The student  paraphrased Numbers 6:24-26 in saying:

“As we say our goodbyes and leave middle school behind, may the Lord bless you and keep you, make His face shine on you and be gracious to you; and lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.” 

The student filed a suit in federal court claiming a violation of her freedom of speech.  A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her.  An appeal is now being made to the full 2nd Circuit. 

“Silencing religious voices in public schools tells students that faith is something to be ashamed of,” says Jeremy Tedesco of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the student in the case.  “The First Amendment does not allow public schools to require students to put a lid on their expressions of faith.”

Long before homosexual activist Floyd Corkins entered the D.C.-based Family Research Council (FRC) with the intent to commit mass murder, I warned from the rooftops that the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center’s anti-Christian “hate group” propaganda might spur such bloodshed. With a column headlined, “Liberal violence rising,” I wrote, “The SPLC’s dangerous and irresponsible (‘hate group’) disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence.”

Tragically, my deepest fears were realized.

Then, in August, days after Corkins was heroically disarmed by FRC employ Leo Johnson, whom Corkins shot in the arm, I penned another column titled “Fanning the flames of left-wing violence.” I plead with the SPLC to end its “dishonest and reprehensible” strategy of “juxtaposing FRC and other Christian organizations with violent extremist groups” in a transparent effort to marginalize them.

“I appeal to your sense of goodwill. This is not a game. Lives are at stake,” I implored. “I know you have good employees (I’ve met some) who believe they’re doing the right thing; so, please, validate that belief. It’s time to remove your metaphorical ‘hate group’ Star of David from mainstream Christian organizations before another of your ideological allies spills blood.”

I no longer believe the SPLC has a sense of goodwill. In fact, based on FBI evidence and the group’s own actions (and inaction), I and many others are left with no other inference but this: The SPLC – a left-wing extremist fundraising behemoth – may be intentionally inciting anti-Christian violence.

Just days ago, Corkins pled guilty to a number of charges, including domestic terrorism. FBI evidence revealed that he was both motivated by and utilized the SPLC’s “anti-gay hate map” to target and locate his intended Christian mass murder victims.

Further evidence reveals that the “hate map” – more accurately labeled “hit map” – even provided the exact location of FRC and other Christian groups found on Corkins’ hit-list with little red dots to helpfully pinpoint their precise locations.

Corkins told the FBI after the shooting that he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches (which he brought with him) in victims’ faces.” Prosecutors said that he planned to leave FRC after the attack and go to another conservative group to continue his reign of terror. A handwritten list of three other groups was found with his belongings while an investigation of Corkins’ computer revealed that he identified his targets on the SPLC website. The other groups were also maliciously listed by the SPLC as “hate groups.”

Motive to kill? Fomented. Who to kill? Provided. Where to kill? Pinpointed, with easy access to driving directions. The only thing the SPLC did not do was purchase Corkins’ gun and drive him to the crime scene.

Here’s why, to my own aghast bewilderment, I’m left with little choice but to believe the SPLC may be intentionally inciting anti-Christian violence. As noted by the FRC, “Even after an attempted mass murder of the FRC staff, the ‘hate map’ is still prominently featured on the SPLC website today – which shocks most conservative pundits.”

“Shocks” is an understatement.

“When Congresswoman Giffords and several others were shot in Arizona by Jared Loughner, the left went into overdrive blaming Sarah Palin for a map that had a list of political targets on it. After the fact, we learned that Loughner was apolitical and he clearly had not used Sarah Palin’s map of political targets. That did not stop the left from blaming the right,” noted RedState’s Erick Erickson. “By the way, Palin took down her target map after the controversy. The Southern Poverty Law Center? Crickets …” 

What other explanation is there? I understand that it’s difficult to admit you’re wrong, especially when the scheme seemed so delicious at the time. But once FBI evidence conclusively proves that you were, to a large degree, responsible for inciting an act of domestic terrorism, most reasonable people would take a deep breath, take a step back, admit fault and hobble forward in an effort to rehabilitate a reputation in ruin.

Is the SPLC a left-wing extremist group? Absolutely. Are they anti-Christian? Without a doubt. But few would have believed, until now, that they might intentionally, with malice aforethought, seek to incite anti-Christian bloodshed.

Scandalously, the Barack Obama administration continues to maintain deep ties with this radical organization.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has a long history of maliciously slandering pro-family groups with language and labels that incite hatred and undermine civil discourse,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “In the issues of family and marriage, Christians are literally in the crosshairs of radical homosexual activists, and the SPLC is fueling the hatred and providing the targets. The SPLC should be held accountable for its reckless acts. Even more disturbing than the SPLC’s irresponsible behavior is the fact that the Obama administration is in bed with this group,” said Staver.

“It is ironic that Christians who believe in natural marriage have been isolated by radical homosexual activists and demonized as ‘homophobes’ and ‘haters,’” he concluded.

Weeks before Corkins pleaded guilty of terrorism and assault with intent to kill, a study from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far Right” said the “violent far right” exhibits an intense fear or dislike of foreign people, “including people with alternative sexual preferences.” The SPLC’s warped view of reality has been adopted by the Obama administration.

“What the SPLC and other homosexual activists are doing is intentional and dangerous,” said Staver. “It is time to end the dangerous rhetoric and resume a civil discourse on the subject of natural marriage and morality.”

Indeed if, God forbid, this SPLC “hate group” propaganda leads to another act of left-wing terrorism like that at FRC, this dangerous group should be held legally – perhaps even criminally liable.

In the meantime, to the media, I say this: If you dare, even for a moment, give any credence whatsoever to this deadly SPLC “hate group” nonsense, you too will have blood on your hands.

SPLC, you’re no longer fooling anyone.

Stop fooling yourselves.

Written by Michael Foust

The Obama administration proposed a rule change Friday it says will appease the concerns religious organizations have about the abortion/contraceptive mandate, but legal groups who defend religious liberty called the proposal inadequate and said it fell far short of what is needed.

Religious groups had hoped the Department of Health and Human Services would announce that all religious organizations — universities, hospitals and charities — are exempt from the mandate, which requires employers to carry health insurance plans covering contraceptives and drugs that can cause chemical abortions. Churches, for example, are exempt from the mandate. Instead, HHS issued a rule it says allows for employees to obtain contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs without the religious employer taking part in the process. Religious liberty groups say employers still will be involved. 

The proposal also does nothing to help businesses such as Bible publisher Tyndale House or Christian-owned Hobby Lobby or any other for-profit whose owners have religious objections to contraceptives and/or abortion-causing drugs. 

“Having reviewed this proposed rule, we … have to say we’re extremely disappointed,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a conference call with reporters. Becket Fund has helped lead the legal charge against the mandate. More than 40 lawsuits have been filed against the mandate. Duncan called the proposal “radically inadequate.”

According to an HHS website, under the proposal, the religious employer “would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for any contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.” Employees “would receive contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies, without cost sharing or additional premiums.” The insurance company would be required to offer the drugs for free, HHS said. 

Religious organizations that are self-insured would have to contact a third party administrator, which would “work with a health insurance issuer to provide separate, individual health insurance policies at no cost for participants.” 

Religious liberty groups had multiple objections to the proposal. First, the groups said, religious organizations still will be required to carry an insurance plan that is tied to coverage of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. Second, religious employers — particularly those who are self-insured — will be acting as “conduits” with health providers to ensure their employees can obtain the drugs. Third, it’s unclear who is paying for the “free drugs.” As some religious commentators were suggesting: Will insurance companies simply raise rates — and thereby pass the cost for the abortion-causing drugs on to the religious organization? 

Duncan said religious organizations are “going to have to carefully consider whether this accommodation really doesn’t change the moral landscape at all. It’s going to be up to them to make that determination. We believe they’re going to have some serious concerns about remaining unacceptably involved in the provision of these drugs and devices.”

Alliance Defending Freedom senior legal counsel Matt Bowman said the proposal still infringes on religious liberty.

“Religious non-profits will, in fact, be forced to provide an insurance plan with a provider that gives the religious group’s employees abortion-pill coverage in direct connection with that plan, the coverage is definitely not free, and the coverage is imposed ‘automatically’ even against the objection of many employees who don’t want free abortion-pill coverage for themselves or their daughters,” Bowman said.

To qualify for the proposal, an organization must self-certify that it “holds itself out as a religious organization,” according to HHS. Ironically that could mean that many of the nation’s leading pro-life organizations — despite being non-profits — won’t qualify for the accommodation because they’re technically not religious organizations.

The HHS announcement did nothing to change the coverage by for-profits. Hobby Lobby, the arts and crafts store whose Christian owners say they will not follow the mandate, apparently will face fines of more than $1 million each day if a federal court does not step in. Its owners always have made their faith a central part of their business. Their stores play Christian instrumental music and are closed on Sundays. Hobby Lobby contributes to Christian organizations and runs full-page ads in newspapers during the Easter and Christmas seasons with Gospel-centered messages.

The good news for Christian for-profits is they are winning in court, having seen 10 wins and only four losses. Hobby Lobby, though, is one of those losses. The issue likely is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The administration fails to understand,” said Gene Rudd of the Christian Medical Association, “that many employers and individual Americans, regardless of a religious label or not, maintain strong conscience objections to participating in any way, shape or form in a plan that promotes pills that the FDA says can cause the demise of a living human embryo — a developing baby in her earliest stage.”

Covered under the mandate are emergency contraceptives such as Plan B and ella that can kill an embryo after fertilization and even after implantation. Pro-lifers consider that action a chemical abortion.

The mandate was announced by HHS in August 2011 as part of the health care law championed by President Obama. Although the Supreme Court upheld the health care law last June, the justices’ ruling did not deal with the religious liberty issues surrounding the abortion/contraceptive mandate. That means the nation’s highest court could yet strike down what has been for religious groups and some business owners the most controversial part of the law.

Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress ) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).

A university employee who was suspended from her job because of her support for the institution of marriage has been reinstated to her position.   Angela McCaskill was relieved of her job last October as the chief diversity officer for Gallaudet University, one of the nation’s leading colleges serving the deaf and hard of hearing. 

McCaskill was shown the door when it was learned that she had signed a petition in support of placing Question 6 on the Maryland statewide ballot.  Passage of Question 6 would have reversed action by  the Maryland Legislature redefining marriage to include homosexual unions. 

McCaskill, who is African-American, had been employed by the Gallaudet for 23 years.  University officials said that McCaskills’ views were inconsistent with those necessary for a chief diversity officer.   

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, and other Christian leaders had taken Gallaudet University to task.  “The University’s action underscores that far more is at stake in redefining marriage than what two people walk down the aisle,” Perkins had said.  “If marriage is redefined, we can expect more of these discriminatory actions against those who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” 

McCaskill’s case is similar to that of Crystal Dixon, another African-American human resources administrator.  Dixon was fired by the University of Toledo after she wrote a letter to a local newspaper objecting to an editorial comparing the “gay rights” movement to the civil rights movement. 

Dixon is appealing her dismissal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  Her attorney, Robert Muise, says the case is an example of the “one-way diversity” of many universities. 

“Anti-Christian bias and bigotry is a hallmark of the diversity crusade promoted in our public institutions.  This case is an egregious example of its pernicious impact on our fundamental rights.” 

Thomas More Society Says Triune Health Group’s Religious Liberty Protected

 Today, Judge Terence M. Sheen of the DuPage County Circuit Court granted Triune Health Group’s motion for a temporary restraining order against Illinois’ contraception mandate, which forces coverage of abortifacients and contraceptives in group healthcare plans. This temporary restraining order comes on the heels of a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve, granting Triune Health Group temporary relief from the federal HHS mandated healthcare coverage of abortifacients, sterilizations, and contraceptives.

“The ruling today is a victory for religious liberty and the right of conscience,” said Peter Breen executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas More Society. “Religious liberty rights don’t end at the four walls of the church. In this pluralistic society, we don’t force people to abandon their religious beliefs merely because they are engaged in the marketplace.”

This was the first ruling by an Illinois court that the state’s contraception mandate for health insurance may be preempted by Illinois laws protecting conscience and religious freedom.

The court will hear argument on the Illinois Attorney General’s motion to transfer the case to Cook County Circuit Court on February 6. Plaintiffs oppose the motion because Triune Health Group is located in DuPage County.

Today’s court order is here.

Information about the federal temporary injunction is here. 

The Public Inauguration of a New Moral McCarthyism

A new chapter in America’s moral revolution came today as Atlanta pastor Louie Giglio withdrew from giving the benediction at President Obama’s second inaugural ceremony. In a statement released to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Giglio said that he withdrew because of the furor that emerged yesterday after a liberal watchdog group revealed that almost twenty years ago he had preached a sermon in which he had stated that homosexuality is a sin and that the “only way out of a homosexual lifestyle … is through the healing power of Jesus.”

In other words, a Christian pastor has been effectively dis-invited from delivering an inaugural prayer because he believes and teaches Christian truth.

The fact that Giglio was actually dis-invited was made clear in a statement from Addie Whisenant of the Presidential Inaugural Committee:

“We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection, and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part because of his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

That statement is, in effect, an embarrassed apology for having invited Louie Giglio in the first place. Whisenant’s statement apologizes for the Presidential Inaugural Committee’s failure to make certain that their selection had never, at any time, for any reason, believed that homosexuality is less than a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. The committee then promised to repent and learn from their failure, committing to select a replacement who would “reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance.”

The imbroglio over Louie Giglio is the clearest evidence of the new Moral McCarthyism of our sexually “tolerant” age. During the infamous McCarthy hearings, witnesses would be asked, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

In the version now to be employed by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the question will be: “Are you now or have you ever been one who believes that homosexuality (or bisexuality, or transsexualism, etc.) is anything less than morally acceptable and worthy of celebration?”

Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church, is also founder of the Passion movement that brings tens of thousands of Christian young people together to hear Giglio, along with speakers such as John Piper. They urge a rising generation of young Christians to make a passionate commitment to Christ. In recent years, the movement has also sought to raise awareness and activism among young Christians on the issue of sex trafficking. It was that activism that caught the attention of both President Obama and the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

Note carefully that both the White House and the committee were ready to celebrate Giglio’s activism on sex trafficking, but all that was swept away by the Moral McCarthyism on the question of homosexuality.

Two other dimensions of this story also demand attention. First, we should note that Louie Giglio has not been known lately for taking any stand on the issue of homosexuality. To the contrary, Giglio’s own statement withdrawing from the invitation made this clear:

“Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.”

A fair-minded reading of that statement indicates that Pastor Giglio has strategically avoided any confrontation with the issue of homosexuality for at least fifteen years. The issue “has not been in the range of my priorities,” he said. Given the Bible’s insistance that sexual morality is inseparable from our “ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ,” this must have been a difficult strategy. It is also a strategy that is very attractive to those who want to avoid being castigated as intolerant or homophobic. As this controversy makes abundantly clear, it is a failed strategy. Louie Giglio was cast out of the circle of the acceptable simply because a liberal watchdog group found one sermon he preached almost twenty years ago. If a preacher has ever taken a stand on biblical conviction, he risks being exposed decades after the fact. Anyone who teaches at any time, to any degree, that homosexual behavior is a sin is now to be cast out.

Second, we should note that Pastor Giglio’s sermon was, as we would expect and hope, filled with grace and the promise of the Gospel. Giglio did not just state that homosexuals are sinners — he made clear that every single human being is a sinner, in need of the redemption that is found only in Jesus Christ. “We’ve got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me … It’s not easy to change, but it’s possible to change,” he preached. He pointed his congregation, gay and straight, to “the healing power of Jesus.” He called his entire congregation to repent and come to Christ by faith.

That is the quintessential Christian Gospel. That is undiluted biblical truth. Those words are the consensus of the Church for over 2,000 years, and the firm belief held by the vast majority of Christians around the world today.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment. By its newly articulated standard, any preacher who holds to the faith of the church for the last 2,000 years is persona non grata. By this standard, no Roman Catholic prelate or priest can participate in the ceremony. No Evangelical who holds to biblical orthodoxy is welcome. The vast majority of Christians around the world have been disinvited. Mormons, and the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism are out. Any Muslim imam who could walk freely in Cairo would be denied a place on the inaugural program. Billy Graham, who participated in at least ten presidential inaugurations is welcome no more. Rick Warren, who incited a similar controversy when he prayed at President Obama’s first inauguration, is way out of bounds. In the span of just four years, the rules are fully changed.

The gauntlet was thrown down yesterday, and the axe fell today. Wayne Besen, founder of the activist group Truth Wins Out, told The New York Times yesterday: “It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on LBGT people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues.”

And there you have it — anyone who has ever believed that homosexuality is morally problematic in any way must now offer public repentance and evidence of having “evolved” on the question. This is the language that President Obama used of his own “evolving” position on same-sex marriage. This is what is now openly demanded of Christians today. If you want to avoid being thrown off the program, you had better learn to evolve fast, and repent in public.

This is precisely what biblical Christians cannot do. While seeking to be gentle in spirit and ruthlessly Gospel-centered in speaking of any sin, we cannot cease to speak of sin as sin. To do so is not only to deny the authority of Scripture, not only to reject the moral consensus of the saints, but it undermines the Gospel itself. The Gospel makes no sense, and is robbed of its saving power, if sin is denied as sin.

An imbroglio is a painful and embarrassing conflict. The imbroglio surrounding Louie Giglio is not only painful, it is revealing. We now see the new Moral McCarthyism in its undisguised and unvarnished reality. If you are a Christian, get ready for the question you will now undoubtedly face: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” There is nowhere to hide.

A Christian counseling student who was the subject of religious discrimination has won a major settlement against Eastern Michigan University. 

University officials have agreed to pay Julea Ward $75,000, after having expelled her from the school’s graduate counseling program. 

As part of her studies, Ward had been asked to counsel a homosexual client.  Ward sought to transfer the client to another counselor, saying she could not affirm the client’s behavior because of her religious beliefs.    

Even though referrals are an accepted practice under the counseling profession’s code of ethics and had been recommended by her supervisor, academic officials fiercely attacked Ward’s position. 

They informed Ward she would have to undergo a “remediation” program where she could “see the error of her ways” and alter her “belief system.”  When Ward held her ground, she was booted from the program. 

“Public universities shouldn’t force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree,” says Jeremey Tedesco of Alliance Defending Freedom.  “We are pleased that Julea and her constitutionally protected rights have been vindicated.” 

Ward had taken her case to federal court, where the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that she was entitled to a trial.  “Tolerance is a two-way street.  A reasonable jury could conclude that Ward’s professors ejected her from the program because of hostility to her speech and her faith,” the judges wrote.     

You can read more about Julea Ward’s case HERE.

The far-left student government at the University of California-Berkeley is calling for the removal of Salvation Army donation boxes from the campus, charging that the charity organization is “homophobic.”

The Associated Students of the University of California have passed a resolution demanding that the university ban the Salvation Army’s Christmas appeal from university property.

“Cal is home to students of a multitude of backgrounds, including queer students, who may take offense to the presence of collection containers operated by a discriminatory religious organization,” the resolution reads.

“Allowing the Salvation Army to collect donations on campus…empowers the organization…to advocate discrimination against queer people,” the resolution continues.

Salvation Army officials deny the accusation that they withhold assistance to individuals who profess to be homosexual.  They point to the organization’s mission statement which reads:  “Our ministry is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His Name without discrimination.”

“Most of the information fueling these concerns is based on outright false or incomplete information,” says Lt. Col. Ralph Bukiewicx, commander of the Chicago Metropolitan Division of the Salvation Army.  “It is extremely regrettable that every year it seems to surface and recirculate.”

You can support the Salvation Army’s Christmas appeal online by clicking HERE.