Month Archives: June 2020

The Threat of Genocide Darkens the Future for Nigeria’s Christians

by Lela Gilbert

June 23, 2020

Today, a dangerous darkness—radical Islamism and its genocidal intentions—is sweeping across the African continent. And it is particularly lethal in Nigeria, Africa’s largest nation.

In short, there is a bloodbath in Nigeria. And those of us who track religious freedom violations and Christian persecution are alarmed, because it seems increasingly clear that another genocide is already taking place. We know what happened in Rwanda. We saw what ISIS did in Iraq. And in recent decades, tens of thousands of Nigerians have been slaughtered. Yet their stories rarely appear in mainstream Western news reports, while virtually nothing is being done to stop the violence.

Two factions of Islamist jihadis are primarily responsible for the carnage.

One is the notorious terrorist group, Boko Haram—one faction of which has now aligned itself with the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP). Today, Boko Haram continues to hold Leah Sharibu, an enslaved Christian teenager who has refused to deny her faith.

On June 22, The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) denounced recent attacks by the Boko Haram faction ISWAP against innocent civilians in northern Nigeria.

Recent ISWAP attacks on innocent civilians are reprehensible,” said USCIRF Vice Chair Anurima Bhargava. “Hundreds have died in recent weeks as ISWAP continues to inflict terror and target civilians based on their beliefs. We condemn this deplorable violence.”

The report goes on to say, “Earlier this month, suspected ISWAP fighters killed 81 people when they attacked Foduma Kolomaiya village in northeast Nigeria. ISWAP then claimed responsibility for twin attacks that killed 20 soldiers and more than 40 civilians in Borno State on June 13.”

Another brutal Nigerian faction is often identified by the innocent-sounding name, “Fulani Herdsmen.” Initially, their violence was attributed to attempts to confiscate grazing land for their animals. However, because of ever-increasing evidence of carnage, outrageous brutality, and shouts of allah hu akbar, the Fulanis’ jihadi intentions have been clearly exposed.

Earlier this month, a report from Nigeria by the Christian Post was accompanied by a photo of a Nigerian Christian pastor who was gunned down, along with his wife, while working on their farm in the Taraba State of Nigeria. The couple left eight children orphaned, ages 1 to 19.

Just days before, CNN reported, “Uwaila Vera Omozuwa was attacked as she studied in church, according to Nigerian police. The 22-year-old died on May 30, just days after the brutal assault inside the church of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, or RCCG, in Benin city… Omozuwa was a member of the choir who had studied privately at the church since lockdown measures due to the coronavirus pandemic were put in place in Nigeria in March.”

Week after week such stories appear, primarily in Christian publications. Usually the killers are identified but not always. And unfortunately, no one really knows the precise numbers of Nigeria’s victims either, thanks to mass graves, torched villages, chaotic aftermaths, and disappearances. Still, the numbers we’ve seen are horrifying.

To make matters even more disturbing, there is mounting evidence that the present government of Nigeria is somehow complicit in the Islamist groups’ assaults. While tens of thousands of Nigeria’s Christians have been killed in recent decades, countless more have been mercilessly raped, maimed, disfigured, and disabled. And the displaced are innumerable.

In 2018, President Donald Trump raised this issue with Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari. “We’ve had very serious problems with Christians who have been murdered, killed in Nigeria,” Trump told reporters, with Buhari seated next to him. “We’re going to be… working on that problem very, very hard because we can’t allow that to happen.”

The remark seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

However, religious freedom researchers and activists continue to pursue accurate fact-finding mechanisms, consistent documentation, and an official U.S. envoy to specifically address this travesty. More and more concerned voices—including USCIRF—are demanding accountability from Nigeria’s leadership and are seeking an effective response from the U.S. government.

But meanwhile, as we watch and wait, we also need to fervently pray for spiritual intervention. Because the more time that passes, the deeper the darkness grows, and it threatens to decimate Nigeria’s Christian believers.

It’s Time to Reassess U.S. Policy Toward Turkey and Erdogan’s Islamist Agenda

by Lela Gilbert

June 22, 2020

Turkish aggression has been reported in at least five countries in June 2020. Turkey’s Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made power moves in Israel, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Greece.

And it is well known that whenever Turkey moves in, religious freedom moves out. Only Turkey’s Islamist practices are respected by Erdogan’s henchmen.

Israel: The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) reported in June that “Turkey is working diligently to deepen its involvement and influence on the Temple Mount, in the Old City of Jerusalem, and in east Jerusalem neighborhoods.” In these locations, there is evidence that the activists involved are ideologically linked to the Muslim Brotherhood movement in east Jerusalem.

Israelis know very well what the Muslim Brotherhood and its cohorts think about Jews and Judaism—on the Temple Mount and elsewhere. And it is worth noting that Erdogan is a loyal supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Libya: On June 20, The Jerusalem Post reported that Egypt and Turkey might come to blows over Libya’s civil war. Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, along with others, back General Khalifa Haftar in the conflict. Turkey and Qatar back the Government of the National Accord (GNA), and Turkey has been aggressively involved, providing aircraft, militias and arms. Notably, GNA is also rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood movement.

Iraq: Turkey has recently bombed Sinjar Mountain, where countless Yazidi refugees have taken shelter. On FRC’s Washington Watch broadcast, Michael Rubin, a scholar and expert on the Middle East, explained that Erdogan’s primary goal is his continued ethnic cleansing of Kurdish groups. Rubin went on to say that many Yazidis have returned to live on Sinjar Mountain, “…the refugees, the women, the girls who have been returning from Syria, liberated from ISIS. They’re trying to get their life together.”

He went on: “And it’s not clear why the Turks are insisting on bombarding them… it raises questions about whether Turkey is waging counter-terrorism, and it’s clear they’re not—or whether they’re pursuing a religious agenda—an intolerant religious agenda.”

The Jerusalem Post also reported on Monday, June 22, that Turkish attacks have also put Christian villages in jeopardy in the same area.

Syria: The Washington Kurdish Institute reported, “During the first days of June 2020, around 20 different human rights organizations signed a petition to raise awareness on crimes carried on by the many Turkish-backed militias in Afrin, Syria and asked for international intervention….”

It is well known and widely reported that Afrin’s religious minorities have been violently abused by the Turks and their militias. Thousands of Christians fled the invasion of Afrin; few remain. And today, Christian and other minority communities in the Rojava region, where many fled Afrin, are again living in fear because of ongoing Turkish threats, attacks on resources, and occasional shelling. 

Greece: Arab News reported on June 14, “In an escalating war of nerves between Athens and Ankara, bilateral relations have deteriorated, sparking fears of a military confrontation between the two NATO allies. Greek Defense Minister Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos recently highlighted the country’s ‘readiness for military conflict with Turkey.’” Even rumors of an impending Turkish invasion of Greece have been reported, although unverified.

As for Greece, a historic perspective reveals widespread Turkish killings of Greek and Assyrian Christians in the early 20th century, with more than a million dead. 

And even today, Greek Orthodox properties in Turkey are confiscated and desecrated. Christian refugees from Syria and Iraq—Syriac, Protestant, and Orthodox alike—who fled to Turkey from ISIS have been deprived of their ability to support themselves and dare not practice their faith. Kidnappings and murders have been reported.

In its 2020 report, the U.S. Commission on International Religion Freedom recommended that the U.S. government “Include Turkey on the U.S. Department of State’s Special Watch List for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).”

Erdogan’s reckless, ruthless intrusion into country after country is believed by some observers to reflect his vision of a glorious, Neo-Ottoman Empire. Other scholars are more inclined to view  his motivation as strictly religious, demanding pan-Islamist conquest. Certainly the two intentions are not mutually exclusive.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has been exceedingly, even excessively tolerant of Erdogan’s widespread human rights abuses. Perhaps the time has come for reevaluation and restoration of an uncompromised U.S. policy toward Turkey. It needs to reflect indiscriminatory justice and equality—including uncompromising demands for religious freedom for all.

Why Bostock Will Never Have the Final Word On Human Sexuality

by David Closson

June 19, 2020

Our rapidly changing moral landscape presents a daunting challenge for Christians committed to biblical sexual ethics. The LGBT movement continues to challenge centuries of norms concerning the family, marriage, and human sexuality. And a recent Supreme Court decision means legal definitions and understanding regarding human sexuality are changing, too.

Secular progressives often criticize conservative Christians for their alleged obsession with sexual ethics. But secular and progressive elites are increasingly forcing the issue, insisting everyone embrace their worldview and the full spectrum of LGBT policy positions or face social ostracizing, public shaming, loss of jobs, or other increasingly dire consequences. Those in positions of cultural and political influence are willing to use the coercive power of government to accomplish their political objectives. This was evident this week in the U.S. Senate as Democrats argued for the immediate passage of the Equality Act, legislation that represents one of the greatest threats to religious liberty ever introduced in Congress. It would gut our nation’s flagship religious liberty law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed nearly unanimously by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. The majority ruled that employment discrimination “on the basis of sex”— prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be understood to include actions based on sexual orientation and gender identity. By reinterpreting the statute in this way, the Court essentially rewrote civil rights law.

Many conservatives were surprised by the decision and considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion to be a betrayal of the originalist and textualist approach he had previously insisted guided his judicial philosophy. As both Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh pointed out in their respective dissents, the majority opinion authored by Gorsuch imposed a meaning that would have been foreign to those who authored the Civil Rights Act and ignored the plain meaning of the statute.

The consequences of the Bostock decision will play out for many years. In the immediate future, there are significant questions about how the ruling will affect religious liberty. Can religious institutions such as colleges and seminaries continue to have have sex-separated dormitories and housing? Are sex separated private spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities now discriminatory? Will women athletes be forced to compete against biological males in both scholastic and professional sports? Will employers be forced to cover treatments and surgeries that are not medically necessary and that are in opposition to their religious beliefs on human embodiment?  

Originalism and textualism are methods of interpreting the law. But as theologically conservative Christians, we hold to a form of originalism and textualism when reading and interpreting Scripture—the historical grammatical method. In other words, we believe God’s Word is authoritative, infallible, and inerrant. Because the Bible is “breathed out” by God, followers of Christ are called to obey and align their lives with it (2 Tim. 3:16). In order to obey and align our lives with the Bible, we must read and interpret it.

The historical grammatical method of interpretation means we take seriously the grammar and syntax of the words and phrases that appear in the Bible because we want to know what the text says and what it means. We also want to place the text in its historical context. The Bible was written in a culture that is very different than our own. To understand many of the stories, we need some understanding of the ancient world in which it took place. Although this process of reading the Bible takes effort, there is no other faithful way to read Scripture.

As theologically conservative Christians, we know our views on marriage and sexuality are increasingly unfashionable and go against the cultural zeitgeist. But we hold to these views anyway, because we believe the Bible’s teachings about marriage and human sexuality are clear.

Transgender activists posit a distinction between the biological reality of sex and the subjective, internal feeling of gender identity. The biblical worldview, however, affirms the goodness of the material creation and the human body. In fact, the doctrines of creation, incarnation, and bodily resurrection provide strong theological affirmation of our physical bodies. Genesis 1:31 says that everything God created, including the human body, is “very good.” In other words, our bodies (including our maleness or femaleness) are essential, integral components of who we are.

In a world disordered by the fall, the goodness of the body may be difficult for many to affirm, and the church should show grace to those who struggle with accepting their bodies. But Christians must also speak the truth in love and stand on our convictions, which biology and anatomy support.

Christians cannot and should not compromise their Bible-informed beliefs about human sexuality. Why? Because we believe in the authority of God’s Word. And because we believe the Bible’s teachings are what is best for society and individual flourishing.

The real reason theologically conservative Christians disapprove of the LGBT movement has nothing to do with wanting to deny people rights or oppressing a group of people. Our convictions come from our compassion for them and our concern about the consequences of certain chosen behaviors. Both the Old and New Testaments prohibit homosexual conduct, and since God created us “male and female” (Gen. 1:27), we have no right to recreate ourselves any more than the clay has the right to tell the potter what to do (Is. 45:9).

As evidenced by the muted outcry to the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday—even among many conservative groups—conservative Christians are increasingly on the periphery when it comes to our convictions on human sexuality. Christians, especially pastors, will continue to face mounting pressure to compromise—or at least downplay—the Bible’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. However, we cannot compromise our beliefs because we are committed to Scripture. While the Court’s decision is deeply discouraging, we do not give up. We know that we are advocating and fighting for timeless truths revealed to us in Scripture.

So, let us continue to articulate a biblically robust, theologically informed perspective on how Christians think about the major issues facing our nation in order to promote the true flourishing of individuals and of society.

FRC’s Top 7 Trending Items (Week of June 14)

by Family Research Council

June 19, 2020

Here are “The 7” top trending items at FRC over the past seven days:

1. Washington Update: “Supreme Court Rewrites Civil Rights Act”

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on the Civil Rights Act that poses a dangerous threat to religious liberty.

2. Washington Update: “Planned Parenthood’s Black Lies Matter Too”

It’s okay to protest a black man’s death. But, why aren’t there Black Lives Matter protestors outside of the city’s abortion clinics, where more African-American babies are aborted than born?

3. Blog: “The Supreme Court Goes Rogue on Sex Discrimination”

Sadly, the Supreme Court has yet again overstepped its power to achieve a desired policy goal which Congress has repeatedly refused to implement, and which is harmful to society.

4. Blog: “What is the Role of the Church Amidst Troubling Times?”

Christians are called to bear witness to the truth. This is not easy, but it is important to allow oneself to be guided by what is right and not by fear.

5. Washington WatchDave Brat blames the lack of moral foundation and education for the collapse of cities like Seattle

Dr. Dave Brat, Dean of the School of Business at Liberty University, joined Tony Perkins to discuss the ideology driving the creation of the Seattle “autonomous zone” and those calling for the elimination of police departments.

6. Washington WatchJeff Sessions says the dividing line between liberals and Middle America is the disrespect for truth

Jeff Sessions, former U.S. Senator from Alabama, joined Tony Perkins to discuss how the effort to eliminate police departments promotes lawlessness.

7. Washington WatchSen. Josh Hawley blasts SCOTUS for taking the legislative mantle from Congress on sex

Josh Hawley, U.S. Senator from Missouri, joined Tony Perkins to discuss yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling redefining sex in federal law.

For more from FRC, visit our website at frc.org, our blog at frcblog.org, our Facebook pageTwitter account, and Instagram account. Get the latest on what FRC is saying about the current issues of the day that impact the state of faith, family, and freedom, both domestically and abroad. Check out “The 7” at the end of every week to get our highlights of the week’s trending items. Have a great weekend!

Supreme Court’s LGBT Ruling Is Not “the Law of the Land” - and Congress Should Act to Make that Clear

by Peter Sprigg

June 19, 2020

On June 15, in a set of three cases consolidated under the name Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” is a form of discrimination “because of … sex”—which was prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh both wrote powerful dissents (Alito’s being joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) pointing out that the Court was effectively rewriting legislation (properly the role of Congress), not merely interpreting it, as the Court is supposed to do.

Some members of Congress have responded to the Bostock decision by calling it “the law of the land.” For example Rep. Bill Foster, an Illinois Democrat, issued a statement saying, “No American should face discrimination by an employer because of who they are or who they love, and I applaud the Court for … making that the law of the land.”

Even more troubling was a statement from Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to an article in Politico, he responded to the Court’s rewriting of the Civil Rights Act by saying, “It’s the law of the land. And it probably makes uniform what a lot of states have already done. And probably negates Congress’s necessity for acting.”

But is this true? Is Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for the Court in Bostock now “the law of the land?”

The phrase “the law of the land” has ancient roots in the history of law. But in the United States, the term is explicitly defined by the U.S. Constitution. Article VI, Clause 2, states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … ; and all Treaties made … under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . .

That’s it. The Constitution, the “Laws of the United States,” and treaties constitute the “Law of the Land”—not Supreme Court decisions. While Supreme Court decisions may serve as binding precedent for the interpretation of the law for as long as those precedents stand, defenders of our system of government should always remember that only the written words of the Constitution, the laws, and treaties themselves are the actual “Law of the Land.”

Nevertheless, when the Supreme Court issues a ruling on constitutional grounds, it is sometimes referred to colloquially (but still inaccurately) as “the law of the land.” The reason is the relative difficulty of overturning such a decision. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court’s interpretation and application of the Constitution can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment or by a new decision of the Supreme Court. This is a difficult task, requiring the approval of two thirds of both Houses of Congress and three quarters of the states.

Many historic Supreme Court decisions, such as the 2015 Obergefell decision redefining marriage and the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision permitting abortion, were based on a reading (however strained) of the U.S. Constitution. The Court’s recent ruling in Bostock was different—it involved only the interpretation of a statute passed by Congress (the Civil Rights Act).

This is an important distinction. When a court—even the Supreme Court—misinterprets a statute, as it did here, not only is it not “the law of the land,” but it is fully within the power of Congress to correct the Court’s error by enacting a new law. In fact, Congress has done so on several occasions.

Sen. Grassley was wrong to say Bostock is now “the law of the land” —Congress writes our laws, not the Supreme Court. He was also wrong to say that “it probably makes uniform what a lot of states have already done.” Only a minority of states had made “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” protected categories in their state civil rights laws, and Congress had consistently refused to do so at the federal level, despite dozens of attempts.

In saying the decision “probably negates Congress’s necessity for acting,” Grassley may have been referring to the Equality Act—an LGBT rights bill approved by the Democratic-controlled House last year. Instead, Democrats are only accelerating their efforts to pass this sweeping bill, which goes well beyond the Supreme Court’s decision. Indeed, just yesterday, Senate Democrats were giving impassioned floor speeches about the need to foist the anti-freedom Equality Act on America—in their words, to override the “religious excuses” of the faithful.

The real “necessity for acting” that still lies with Congress is to correct the Supreme Court’s erroneous interpretation of the law, and preserve the power of Congress, not the Court, to write the “Laws of the United States.”

What is the Role of the Church Amidst Troubling Times?

by Samantha Stahl

June 18, 2020

According to Scripture, Christians have a responsibility to share the hope of the gospel (Mat. 5:14-16). Jesus made this clear in the Great Commission when He commissioned His disciples to spread His message to the ends of the world. Today, Americans are experiencing trying times. Amidst a virus that is frightening people and tearing apart economies, church celebrations that remain suspended, and riots that put vengeance as the answer to cases of unjust police violence, it can be hard to see God working. However, through the darkest points in history, God has raised up people of strong faith. Right now, God is calling upon the church to lead His people, and to not be silent. The church can give answers to today’s questions of how to proceed.

As controversial as it may be today, Christians are called to bear witness to the truth. This is not easy, but it is important to allow oneself to be guided by what is right and not by fear. Prayer is greatly needed for leaders and for the community. Even when it seems God is not immediately answering our prayers, we are still called to pray (1 Tim. 2:2). Leaders of the church must not be silent and must continue to speak bold messages of hope and support during these times.

As we’ve seen throughout the last three months, Christians should continue to serve those in their communities by offering them encouragement. Serving one’s community can be as simple as making a call or writing a letter, or something practical such as running an errand or safely praying with them. The best way to be a light of God is to be a light to others in His name. For a list of resources including ideas to serve your community, check out FRC’s church resource page at frc.org/church.

Christians must also not be silent during these times, especially as churches are still closed. When the church cannot worship together, the whole Christian community and beyond is affected by a lack of sharing the gospel. Christ’s command to “proclaim the good news to the whole creation” is greatly hindered if Christians cannot come together to worship (Mark 16:15). Many have fallen and will fall into a spiritual slump due to months of being unable to gather for public worship. Peace and joy have been fading as violence and hate settles in among people. The world needs the church now more than ever as it is greatly feeling the lack of messages of hope and guidance previously brought by open churches. Christians must be able to again partake in the communal worship of God in order to best be a light for this world.

Christians can help America get through the violent riots and the ensuing destruction. This is accomplished specifically by supporting the good in people. Peaceful protests represent the proper use of American freedom. However, when violent riots ensue (which do not honor the memory of George Floyd and others unjustly killed), it becomes an abuse of freedom.

As Christians, speaking out with love in the face of anger will change the response to violence. An example of such Christian leadership can be found in the words of Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) during a recent Congressional hearing on police brutality, where he stated that everyone is made in the image of God, despite skin color. He called for a defense of the people upholding truth and justice, while not condoning those who obstruct those values. Elsewhere, many people have reached out to communities struck by violent riots, cleaning up the mess as best they can. For example, according to CNN, a truck driver in Houston, Texas named Brian Irving spent hours cleaning up after a riot destroyed parts of the city. Such examples of Christians living out the principles of their faith are shining beacons in these dark times, and they ought to be emulated. The church has a unique opportunity to bring these moments of good to light, and show the world there are indeed good people.

When the church is at work during a time of crisis, God does not fail to turn that work into something beautiful. Setting an example of prayer and peace in a time of pandemonium will help bring stability. Christians must rise together and bring the truth of Christ to a world that is searching for truth. God is calling the church to be that beacon of light for the world.

Samantha Stahl is Policy/Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council.

The Supreme Court Goes Rogue on Sex Discrimination

by Peter Sprigg , Mary Beth Waddell, J.D.

June 17, 2020

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court re-wrote Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by holding that sexual orientation and gender identity are included in the statute. 

The majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, claims to be using a textualist approach, yet its analysis and holding prove otherwise.

Justice Samuel Alito concisely opened his dissent with the summary: “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.” Justice Alito aptly compared this opinion to a pirate ship sailing under a textualist flag.

He went on to state, “Many will applaud today’s decision because they agree on policy grounds…. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not” (emphasis in the original).

Indeed, Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent seems to show sympathy for the policy outcome, yet he agreed that it is not within the Court’s constitutional boundaries to make this change.

Despite its improper analysis of other scenarios, the majority opinion properly makes reference to “an employer who fires a female employee for tardiness or incompetence or simply supporting the wrong sports team. Assuming the employer would not have tolerated the same trait in a man, Title VII stands silent.” Yet it does not carry this analysis through in the cases at hand. The proper analysis is whether or not an employer would fire a female employee for homosexuality or identification as the opposite sex, but would not fire a male employee for homosexuality or identification as the opposite sex.

This wrong legal analysis leaves many questions unanswered. In seeming acknowledgement of the policy Pandora’s box it has opened, the majority opinion acknowledges the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Ministerial Exception, but only to say that how either would be impacted by the decision is not currently before the court—thus inviting litigation. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is under attack in Congress, and the scope of the Ministerial Exception is currently under consideration before the Court, so these legal protections for religious freedom  provide little solace.

Justice Alito rightly points out that Congress has repeatedly refused to include sexual orientation or gender identity in Title VII or other federal civil rights statutes. Language to do so is included in the Equality Act and other bills which are introduced year after year without success. Yet, with its decision, the Court has essentially enacted the employment provisions of the Equality Act.

Sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination laws are unjustified in principle, because these characteristics are not inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, or in the U.S. Constitution—unlike race and sex. In many situations, such laws pose a threat to religious liberty, which is protected by the Constitution. Not only that, but these laws pose a threat to women and, even those who identify as homosexual or transgender.

Justice Alito acknowledges numerous areas where the majority opinion could have serious implications:

  • Religious employers could face litigation and be compelled to “employ individuals whose conduct flouts the tenets of the organization’s faith [which] forces the group to communicate an objectionable message.”
  • Transgender identified individuals could be entitled to use the bathroom, locker room, etc. of their choice.
  • Women athletes could be forced to compete against athletes who are biologically male in both scholastic and professional sports.
  • Schools could be prevented from having sex-separated dormitories and housing.
  • Employers could be forced to cover treatments and surgeries that are not deemed medically necessary and, for religious employers, are in opposition to their faith tenets.
  • Freedom of speech, as it relates to both pronoun usage and employees’ ability to express their beliefs about marriage, family, and human sexuality, is now called into question.
  • The standard of review by which courts judge claims related to sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination could be upgraded to a stricter standard of review, like that used for sex discrimination.

Sadly, the Court has yet again usurped congressional power to achieve a desired policy goal which Congress has repeatedly refused to implement, and which is detrimental to society. 

With the Court’s invitation for litigation, the American Civil Liberties Union expects hundreds of cases to be filed.

Now, we wait to see how this will play out in future litigation and how Congress will respond to this judicial assault upon its constitutional prerogatives.

Mary Beth Waddell is Senior Legislative Assistant at Family Research Council. Peter Sprigg is Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at Family Research Council.

Families and Charitable Organizations: The Foundation of American Society

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP

June 17, 2020

This piece was originally published at NRB.org.

Churches and other charitable organizations have been on the front lines of the coronavirus response. A few examples are Samaritan’s Purse building a field hospital in New York City’s Central Park and churches hosting food drives and conducting coronavirus testing. One Alabama church tested 1,000 people in two days! Despite the active role these nonprofits have taken in meeting the health and economic needs of our country, they still rely on donations—at a time when many Americans face financial hardship due to job loss, limited working hours, or increased medical costs. Such hardships may lead to a decline in charitable donations. Thankfully, some leaders on Capitol Hill are championing the important role churches and charitable organizations play in helping local communities.

One way the tax code helps charitable organizations is through the charitable deduction. However when the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act simplified and raised the standard deduction to $12,000, it caused many tax filers to take the standard deduction instead of itemizing their charitable contributions. Realizing this problem in the tax code, Congress recently passed the CARES Act, which allows charitable contributions up to $300 to be deducted above and beyond the standard deduction on annual tax returns. This new policy is a great first step in promoting charitable giving during the pandemic. But congressional leaders believe there is much more to be done.

Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) has been the most vocal voice advocating for direct changes to the tax law to support both families and nonprofits. He summed this need up perfectly in a Joint Economic Committee hearing on charitable giving. “We have three safety nets in America. The family is the first safety net. Nonprofits are our second safety net and government is our third…The first two are essential and if the family collapses, nonprofits struggle to keep up and governments struggle to keep up.”

In May, Senator Lankford and Senator Angus King (I-Maine) co-authored a letter to Senate leaders, advocating for nonprofits, charities, and houses of worship in any future coronavirus relief bills. One of the specific proposals Lankford and King offered is raising the $300 charitable deduction limit in the CARES Act to one-third of the standard deduction. This would equate to $4,000 for individuals and $8,000 for married couples. Representative Mark Walker (R-N.C.) has taken a similar approach in the House of Representatives. His bill, the Coronavirus Help and Response Initiative Through the Year 2022 (CHARITY) Act, would expand the charitable deduction to one-third of the standard deduction until 2022.

Families and churches are the foundation of our society. They are, therefore, the societal institutions best-equipped to provide stability when America faces many health and safety challenges. When families and churches struggle, so does the rest of America. That is why the government needs to recognize and support these institutions and charitable organizations. As Sen. Lankford said, “it’s beneficial for us in our official policy and what we choose to do in the tax code to be able to create a tax code that is encouraging to families and that is encouraging to nonprofits.

Is Judge Duncan an “Ultra-Conservative” or Just an Originalist?

by Katherine Beck Johnson

June 16, 2020

The Guardian put out a piece attempting to criticize Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The piece only succeeded in highlighting the author’s fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a judge. It is not the role of a judge to weigh into what the law should be, but rather the judge interprets what the law is, the law enacted by the people’s representatives. 

Many of President Trump’s judicial nominees are originalist and textualist. While these may be considered “conservative” judicial philosophies, the result is not always conservative policy goals. If the judge is interpreting a “liberal” law, the text will lead to a result that is liberal. The basic goal of originalism and textualism is that the people, not unelected judges, say what the law ought to be. The judge’s role is to say what the law is, or what the people enacted through their elected officials. Therefore, the Guardian’s fearmongering piece claiming that the judges appointed by President Trump have any role in abortion law is false. It isn’t Trump-appointed judges, it’s the people that have the role of saying what abortion laws should prevail in their states. Judge Duncan is no exception to this rule.

The piece quotes the legal director at Alliance for Justice saying, “For the overwhelming number of cases, the constitutional rights of the people in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi will be made by Kyle Duncan and the other ultra-conservatives on the fifth circuit.” This is false. The rights of the people will be made by the people—not the judges on the fifth circuit.

While a lawyer in private practice, Judge Duncan advocated for Louisiana’s law that is currently before the Supreme Court: June Medical v. Russo. This law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. It’s a commonsense law that demands abortion facilities abide by the same rules as all other outpatient surgical centers. When Judge Duncan was in private practice, he defended this law on behalf of the state of Louisiana until he became a judge. The Fifth Circuit, where Judge Duncan now sits, upheld this law. Judge Duncan followed proper judicial protocol and recused himself from the case because he had advocated for Louisiana when he was in private practice. He has clearly conducted himself in an ethical manner on the Fifth Circuit.

The Guardian piece is yet another example of a judge being attacked for their faith, as the piece specifically points out Judge Duncan’s Catholic faith. In America, one’s religion does not prevent them from being selected for a job. Judge Duncan’s history advocating for religious liberty is another aspect of him that the piece viewed as problematic. A judge that recognizes our first freedom, our freedom of religion, is not problematic. Judge Duncan understands just how important religious liberty is to our Constitution.

The Constitution makes it clear that the role of a judge is to say what the law is and not what the law ought to be. The people of the United States are the ones charged with saying what the laws that dictate their lives should be. Judge Duncan knows his role as a judge and has done a wonderful job. We need more judges like Judge Duncan.

An American Pastor was Finally Released from India. Hostility to Christians is Still on the Rise.

by Arielle Del Turco

June 15, 2020

American pastor Bryan Nerren was finally allowed to return home at the end of May after being detained in India for over seven months on a minor charge. “I am back with family and friends at home,” the Tennessee pastor told Morning Star News. “It is a wonderful time.” While his release is worth celebrating, the fact that the Indian government detained him for so long on such a minor charge signifies deeper religious freedom problems in the world’s largest democracy.

Authorities interrupted Pastor Nerren’s two-week trip to India and Nepal in October 2019, arresting him as he got off his flight in Bagdogra. Officials questioned him about failing to pay duty on $40,000—meant to fund two ministry conferences—that he brought with him when he arrived in New Delhi. 

But Pastor Nerren had done nothing wrong. He maintains he was never told to pay a duty. And he was not carrying enough money to be charged for evading tax duty anyways.

The real issue was his Christian mission. According to his lawyers, Indian officials “specifically asked if he was a Christian and if the funds would be used to support Christian causes.” After spending six days in jail, Pastor Nerren was required to pay a $4,000 fine. He was released but was banned from leaving the country.

The targeted interrogation about Pastor Nerren’s faith reflects a growing problem in India—the Indian government led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is increasingly hostile to Christianity. Since the 2014 election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who rose to power with the BJP, things have been going from bad to worse for religious minorities.

Hindu nationalism advances the harmful narrative that “to be Indian is to be Hindu.” This belief implies that faiths other than Hinduism erode national unity.

Because they do not want Indians to convert to Christianity, Hindu nationalist leaders feel threatened by Christian missionaries and have, at times, been openly hostile to them. One former BJP politician called Christian missionaries “a threat to the unity of the country.”

In 2017, the Indian government cracked down on Compassion International, a Christian humanitarian aid group. Compassion International once provided food and medical assistance to around 145,000 Indian children. Yet, because the government was afraid it encouraged conversions to Christianity, the organization was forced to leave the country. The government’s hostility to Christianity had practical implications for impoverished children of all faiths. 

Just last week, India turned down a request for travel visas by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) which has wanted to review India’s religious freedom conditions. USCIRF, a federal commission tasked with advising the government on international religious freedom policies has been critical of India’s deteriorating religious freedom. In April, USCIRF’s annual report recommended that the U.S. officially designate India a “Country of Particular Concern” on religious freedom, clearly for good reason.

India is the world’s largest democracy, and the Indian government’s growing intolerance toward Christianity should be a concern that the rest of the world takes seriously. Facing discrimination from the government and mob violence from fellow citizens, Christians in India, many of whom are poor and marginalized, lack power to speak up for themselves. It falls to the rest of the world—including the United States, a strategic partner for India—to speak up on their behalf. 

May 2020 «

» July 2020

Archives