Posts

New Report Shows Increase in ‘Religious Freedom Violations’ in Recent Years

Hostility toward religion is on the rise in the United States, according to a new report.

The report, which was recently released by the Family Research Council, shows an increase in the number of incidents involving “religious freedom violations” since the first report was released in July 2014. The original report spanned over a decade and contained 90 incidents. In the last three years, 69 new incidents have been added.

“The recent spike in government driven religious hostility is sadly not surprising, especially considering the Obama administration’s antagonism toward biblical Christianity,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, in a statement. “The report underscores the legitimacy of the actions taken by the Trump administration to end the policies and practices in federal agencies that fan the flames of this religious intolerance.”

Perkins added the report’s findings also show “ the growing courage of Christians, especially young Christians, to defend both their faith and their freedoms.”

The report found that antagonism toward religious beliefs on sexuality was fueling much of the increase:

Hostility to religious beliefs on natural marriage and human sexuality … [included] 42 incidents in the report’s first edition. In the time since then, 48 new incidents have been added to these sections. Thus, the number of these religious freedom violations more than doubled …

In the introduction to the report, the Family Research Council writes that the attacks on religious teaching on marriage and sexuality “is the product of more insidious forces which ultimately will erode civil liberties for all Americans, even if they hold a different viewpoint than our own.”

Included in the religious liberty violations listed in the report was one about a survey distributed by a major financial firm.

In 2014, JPMorgan Chase, a vocal advocate of LGBT rights, sent out a survey to its employees asking a number of questions. The survey asked if the employee was “disabled, had family members that were disabled, if they were LGBT, or if they were allies of the LGBT movement.” Employees that answered negatively the final question could be interpreted as being at odds with the beliefs of the firm.

In February 2016, Edie and David Delorme received death threats after declining to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. The Delormes, who are devout Baptists, have previously refused to create cakes that go against their religious convictions, including those “that support alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or convey sexually inappropriate images,” according to the report.

Rather than accepting a list of nearby bakeries that would create the same-sex wedding cake instead, the couple complained to the media, bringing on harsh attacks against the Delormes.

“The bakery received threats of violence on social media and Yelp,” the Family Research Council wrote. “Though the bakery was never threatened with a lawsuit, they remain a target of criticism by LGBT activists.”

Another area of extreme hostility concerns Catholic churches, schools, and hospitals who have been operating in accordance with the Catholic Church’s teaching.

One example occurred in September 2016 when Kate Drumgoole, a guidance counselor and coach at a Catholic high school in New Jersey, was fired when the administration learned that she was in a same-sex relationship.

Drumgoole, citing discrimination, sued the archdiocese and Paramus Catholic High School despite having previously signed the archdiocese’s “Policies on Professional and Ministerial Conduct.” By signing it, teachers acknowledge the requirement that they “act in accordance with the ‘discipline, norms and teachings of the Catholic Church.’”

“Religious liberty is the exercise of our inherent, natural rights. It is not limited to freedom to worship, rather, it means that we are free to live consistently with our beliefs in the public square,” says Melanie Israel, a research associate in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

“Individuals and organizations should be able to maintain their ability to abide by their religious convictions when they carry out their work, including serving the poor, educating the next generation, or running a business.” (For more from the author of “New Report Shows Increase in ‘Religious Freedom Violations’ in Recent Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian-Hating, Federally-Funded Southern Poverty Law Center Put on Defensive

The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been in the spotlight recently for its practice of designating conservative non-profits as “hate groups,” has gone on defense.

Richard Cohen, the president of SPLC, which has been linked to a domestic terror attack, wrote in a Huffington Post commentary that Christians deserve the designation because they “sow the seeds of hate” . . .

The Family Research Council, wrote Cohen, has a “long track record of using dehumanizing language and outright lies to portray LGBT people as sick, evil, and a danger to children and society. As stated on its website, it opposes the acceptance of homosexuality ‘in the law, in the media, and in the schools.’”

He also renewed his group’s attacks on the conservative Center for Immigration Studies . . .

SPLC sits in judgment of Christians and others, labeling as “haters” those who disagree with its pro-homosexual and open- borders agendas. In fact, SPLC put Dr. Ben Carson in that category before facing a backlash and abruptly backtracking. (Read more from “Christian-Hating, Federally-Funded Southern Poverty Law Center Put on Defensive” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bad News for LGBTQ: Plan to Take Back Rainbow

Many thousands of years before the “gay” movement claimed the rainbow as its emblem, God fashioned the brilliantly colored banner of light and painted it across the sky as a beautiful symbol of his enduring covenant with mankind.

Six millennia later, bare-skinned “gay” men would strut their stuff on parade floats wearing nothing but rainbow Speedos, tutu skirts and body paint, celebrating their homosexual “pride” by proudly displaying the spectrum through America’s public streets.

Now, after decades of witnessing the colors splashed across “gay” parades, flags, bumper stickers and even the White House in 2015, one prominent Christian has announced his plan to “take back the rainbow.”

Ken Ham is president of Answers in Genesis, which created the Ark Encounter, a massive reproduction in Kentucky of the biblical Noah’s Ark. Described as the largest timber frame structure in the world, the project re-created Noah’s Ark at 510 feet long, 85 feet wide and 51 feet high . . .

Ham announced on Twitter that the ark will be lit with a massive rainbow every evening. (Read more from “Bad News for LGBTQ: Plan to Take Back Rainbow” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Demonstrators Attacked, Injured by Liberals Waving Gay Pride Flag

“Defense of Christianity” demonstration in front of Calgary’s City Hall turned violent.

Street Church had a valid permit and was ready to begin when angry members of Calgary’s “Anti-Fascist Action” group started screaming in the faces of demonstrators.

The “Street Church” demonstrators screamed back, “Jesus loves you and wants to save your soul,” and similar messages. Confrontations escalated, culminating in the “Anti-Fascist” group starting several mixed martial arts fights.

The rally disintegrated into a mass brawl quickly as counter-protesters cursed at, pushed, threw down, kicked, and began punching Street Church members. (Read more from “Christian Demonstrators Attacked, Injured by Liberals Waving Gay Pride Flag” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Vatican Official: Satan Hurling ‘Anti-Creation’ at God

When God created the world, the Bible says He saw it was “very good.” A natural order had been established. But mankind fell to sin and death, and that order was destroyed . . .

Christianity is being driven from public life. Homosexuality, transsexuality and other “identities” and sexual activities that were once considered perverse are now regarded by elites as core to Western civilization.

Among the younger generation, more evangelicals are accepting of same-sex marriage. And the only time liberals seem willing to side against sexual degeneracy is when it means aiding the cause of the Muslims who are colonizing the West in ever-growing numbers.

To traditionally minded Christians, it may seem like the world has gone insane. Now, one of the Vatican’s intellectual leaders, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, has declared Satan launched the “ultimate and terrible challenge” in a form of an “anti-creation” being constructed around the world.

In an address to the Rome Life Forum, Cardinal Caffarra identified Satan with the drive to deny the truth within the heart of man. He specifically said two innovations are core to this “anti-creation” – abortion and homosexuality. (Read more from “Top Vatican Official: Satan Hurling ‘Anti-Creation’ at God” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Key Difference Between Christianity and Islam

The key difference between Christianity and Islam is the difference between Jesus and Muhammad. Jesus was a spiritual leader who laid down His life to save the world. Muhammad was a spiritual leader, who became a political leader, then a violent military leader. Jesus accomplished His mission by dying on the cross. Muhammad accomplished his mission (at least largely) by ruling by the sword.

There are, of course, great similarities between the world’s two largest religions. Both point to a holy book, allegedly inspired by God, for faith and practice. Both call for high moral standards and serious personal commitment. Both share common traditions, since Muhammad learned from Jews as well as Christians. And both have a vision to spread their faith around the world.

But this is where the two faiths diverge. One follows the example of a crucified and risen Savior. The other follows the example of a prophet and military leader.

Cross vs. Sword

The biblical verses of violence (as in “Kill the Canaanites”) were limited to a specific place and time. No such commands are found on Jesus’ lips. The Quranic verses of violence (as in “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them”) do not have such obvious limitations. Many Quranic interpreters and Islamic jurists claim that those verses cannot be applied indiscriminately today. But others differ. And they proudly cite them in their jihadi manuals.

Again, the difference is that of the cross versus the sword. That’s why Jesus and His followers never established the death penalty for leaving the faith. Muhammad established it once he assumed military dominance. And the death penalty for apostasy from Islam remains in force in a number of Islamic countries today.

Muhammad beheaded some of his enemies. Jesus forbade His followers from taking up the sword in His defense. The differences are glaring and clear.

Just compare the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels with those of Muhammad in the Hadith. Jesus never calls for violent acts against enemies of the faith. Muhammad often does. That’s why there’s no gospel (or apostolic) equivalent to the lengthy collection of Muhammad’s military raids.

Exception vs. Expression

The most tolerant expressions of Islam are found when: 1) Muslims are the minority in a country, as in America; or 2) the Muslim-dominated country is quite secular, as in Indonesia. In strictly observant Muslim countries, there is limited tolerance for non-Muslims.

If you don’t believe me, try setting up a public Christian mission to Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran. Tell me how long it lasts.

I do commend those Muslims who call for a more tolerant expression of their faith. They abhor the terrorism carried out in the name of their religion. But if they’re honest, they will have to admit that violent Islam has a long and rich history.

To quote the noted Catholic scholar of Islam Samir Kahlil Samir,

I speak about the violence expressed in the Qur’ān and practiced in Muhammad’s life in order to address the idea, widespread in the West, that the violence we see today is a deformation of Islam. We must honestly admit that there are two readings of the Qur’ān and the sunna (Islamic traditions connected to Muhammad): one that opts for the verses that encourage tolerance toward other believers, and one that prefers the verses that encourage conflict. Both readings are legitimate.

Acts of violence carried out to advance the Christian faith are the extreme exception to the rule. Acts of violence carried out to advance the Islamic faith are all too common.

Liberation vs. Subjugation

When it comes to freedom of religion, a country like America, drawing on Judeo-Christian principles, has allowed this liberty from its founding. And in a country like England, which also has a rich Christian history (despite its current backslidden state), Muslims can practice their religion freely. They can even proselytize non-Muslims.If Muslims became the majority religion in England, it would be a different story. Non-Muslims would become second-class citizens. They would have limited freedoms (like Christians in Pakistan), unless they converted to Islam.

It is true that both faiths seek to spread their message by disseminating information. Both faiths point to the sublime message of their founders. But the message of Jesus leads to liberation while the message of Muhammad leads to subjugation.

Again, I know there are honorable Muslims who seek to reform their faith. Some of them believe they are being true to the real spirit of their faith.

But there’s a reason that, in general, true Christians are persecuted by true Muslims rather than true Muslims persecuted by true Christians. It’s the difference between the cross and the sword. (For more from the author of “The Key Difference Between Christianity and Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Judge Rules Cross Violates Law and Must Be Removed

Atheists across the fruited plain are rejoicing after a federal judge declared that a cross erected in a Florida park violated the law and must come down.

“I am aware that there is a lot of support in Pensacola to keep the cross as is, and I understand and I understand and respect that point of view,” U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson wrote in his ruling. “But, the law is the law.”

The lawsuit was filed in 2016 by the notorious Freedom From Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association on behalf of four Pensacola citizens. Click here to view photos of the cross.

The judge pointed out that park has hosted tens of thousands of people for roughly 75 years without causing anyone offense — until now.

“When a city park serving all citizens — nonreligious, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and Christian — contains a towering Latin cross, this sends a message of exclusion to non-Christians, and a corresponding message to Christians that they are favored citizens,” said Annie Gaylor, the organization’s perpetually offended co-founder. (Read more from “Federal Judge Rules Cross Violates Law and Must Be Removed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Religious Adoption Agencies Can Reject LGBT Parents in Texas

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill allowing faith-based foster care and adoption agencies to deny LGBT parents Thursday.

Abbott signed HB 3859 into law, effectively protecting faith-based agencies from being sued for choosing not to place children with gay, lesbian, transgender or other LGBT couples.

Democrats argue the bill is redundant because the law already protects the rights of faith-based agencies to make child placement decisions based on an agency’s religion. The new law, however, further ensures that the state cannot sue agencies for denying potential parents based on religious criteria.

State Rep. James Frank, author of the bill, said it would not only defend the rights of religious agencies, but also help solve the housing crisis that plagues the foster and adoption systems.

“This is a defensive bill. It allows everyone to participate,” said Frank. “It requires [Child Protective Services] to maintain a diverse network of homes and provides reasonable accommodations to those who are helping solve our foster care capacity crisis.” (Read more from “Religious Adoption Agencies Can Reject LGBT Parents in Texas” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Leak Reveals Strong Protections for Religious Ministries May Be Coming

President Donald Trump is taking another step to protect freedom of conscience, if new rules leaked Wednesday come to pass.

The leak revealed only a draft version of the rules. But if adopted, ministries would be allowed to forgo providing contraception to employees. The White House refused any comment beyond calling the leak an “alleged draft.”

First Liberty Institute, a Texas-based law firm devoted exclusively to religious freedom cases, applauded the news. First Liberty says the new rules would end a near-three year legal battle for several of their clients. Many had sued the federal government in 2014. The suits challenged the HHS mandate embedded in Obamacare. The so-called “abortion pill mandate” or “contraception mandate” forced non-profits to provide birth control to their workers, regardless of religious and conscience objections.

The Little Sisters of the Poor is perhaps the best known ministry involved in the mandate battle. (The now-famous group of Catholic nuns was represented by the Becket Fund.) Last year the Supreme Court declined to rule in their case. Instead, it was sent back to lower courts that previously ruled against the Little Sisters. Some hailed the decision as a victory for religious freedom.

But the rules leaked Wednesday would offer a much more final victory for religious ministries — especially after President Trump’s religious liberty order was found lacking by many conservatives.

“The Trump administration has clearly announced its intent to adopt an important new policy for religious ministries across the country,” said Jeremy Dys, First Liberty Deputy General Counsel. “Our clients are delighted to see their religious liberty potentially restored and to be freed to pursue their mission without the threat of punishment by their government hanging over their heads.” (For more from the author of “Leak Reveals Strong Protections for Religious Ministries May Be Coming” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Christian Artists’ Free Speech: Will SCOTUS Take up Vital Issue?

Should artists be forced to promote messages against their conscience? The Supreme Court could be taking up the question soon, if a recent lower-court ruling out of Kentucky is any indication.

Late last week, news broke that the Kentucky Court of Appeals sided with Hands On Originals, a print shop in the Bluegrass State, saying that business owner Blaine Adamson did not have to engage in business that conflicts with his religious beliefs. The ruling comes five years after he told a prospective client that he could not make T-shirts for a gay pride festival in 2012.

The Associated Press has more details:

Chief Judge Joy Kramer wrote in her opinion that the city’s ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation does not prohibit the owners of Hands On Originals from “engaging in viewpoint or message censorship.” Kramer said the business objected to the message of gay pride, not anyone’s sexual orientation.

“Thus, although the menu of services HOO provides to the public is accordingly limited, and censors certain points of view, it is the same limited menu HOO offers to every customer and is not, therefore, prohibited by the fairness ordinance,” the ruling states.

The legal question at hand is one of the biggest religious liberty issues facing the country, as religious business owners have faced a number of struggles following the 2015 “Obergefell v. Hodges” gay marriage decision and a slew of state-level LGBT laws that seek to eliminate traditional beliefs on marriage, biology, and sexuality from the marketplace.

Plaintiffs argue that not creating pro-LGBT messages amounts to class-based discrimination prohibited in federal law. Proponents argue that this is inaccurate and that it constitutes abstaining from an action based on belief – a long-respected protection of the First Amendment.

The Kentucky ruling differs from other recent lower-court rulings on similar questions. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that a Christian florist was not within her rights to decline serving a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Now that the lower courts have split in their opinions, the issue is more appealing for the U.S. Supreme Court, Jim Campbell, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, tells Conservative Review. ADF is the pro-religious liberty legal nonprofit representing Blaine Adamson in Kentucky.

The case to watch now is that of owner Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colo. Phillips was recently turned down by the Colorado Supreme Court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission previously found him guilty of discrimination, but it could very well be on the docket for the next judicial session in D.C.

(As ADF notes, “In contrast to the ruling against Phillips, the commission found last year that three other Denver cake artists were not guilty of creed discrimination when they declined a Christian customer’s request for a cake that reflected his religious opposition to same-sex marriage.”)

“They’re holding [the case] for two months now, which is kind of odd,” Campbell says. “Whenever they’re holding something, it obviously means that it’s caught someone’s attention. Which is a good sign … because the default is to be denied.” He says a decision on the petition could come as soon as Monday.

There are a handful of other cases that all evaluate the intersection of conscience rights, free expression, and non-discrimination that are currently working through the courts. Should the current petition on Masterpiece be denied, these cases will likely continue to work their own ways up in its stead.

But there are still many variables in this equation. Despite the messianic treatment Neil Gorsuch received from many conservatives, and as often as he is used as the go-to counter-example to complaints about Trump’s betrayals on a host of other issues (like immigration and religious liberty), one must remember that there are still eight other justices on the high bench. In replacing Antonin Scalia, the balance of the court was restored to the same makeup that gave the American people decisions like “Obergefell” and “Windsor.”

Hopeful rumors are currently buzzing around the beltway conservative enclaves about the prospect of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement this summer. If true, the vacant seat and nuclear appointment rules would give the Trump administration the ability to tip the balance of the bench in a more originalist direction, which would bode well for any of these cases. But this nothing more than speculation and rumor at this point.

A multitude of factors affect the final outcome. Will the First Amendment be weakened or buttressed in post-Obergefell America? It would appear that the answer will not have to wait very long — at least on judicial time. (For more from the author of “Christian Artists’ Free Speech: Will SCOTUS Take up Vital Issue?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.