FRC Blog

Senate Democrats: Tone-Deaf on Religious Freedom

by Travis Weber, J.D., LL.M.

October 14, 2020

Throughout the last several days of Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats using Amy Coney Barrett as a political prop for their re-election campaigns (and antagonism toward President Trump), Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii turned in one of the worst performances on day three of the confirmation hearing—exhibiting a tone-deafness to religious freedom that was almost bizarre.

Among her list of cases on a giant poster-board supposedly showing that the sky would fall if Barrett is confirmed, Hirono included South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, which she claimed is putting “COVID safety measures” at risk.

Yet, South Bay is a case in which the Supreme Court refused to step in and protect a church from being discriminated against under coronavirus restrictions, after California continued to treat religious worship gatherings less equally than “factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries” under its approach to the coronavirus.

Why is Hirono using a case in which a church is being shut down to claim that coronavirus restrictions are at risk? Either she devalues religious freedom that much, or is blind to the needs of such churches.

But that church’s pastor, Amada Huizar, is not. He has had to face the very real and serious consequences of what has happened because churches have been unconstitutionally shuttered around the country: harm to communities and the people who live in them. Pastor Huizar recently joined FRC President Tony Perkins on Washington Watch to share the incredible life-and-death story of his decision to reopen his church, and spoke at Freedom Sunday, an event held to call on churches to reopen in the face of unconstitutional restrictions on them around the country.

Senator Hirono may simply be tone-deaf to the religious freedom rights of Pastor Huizar and others like him. The alternative is that she thinks so little of the First Amendment that she’s willing to use a case suppressing a church’s rights in her bid to block Judge Barrett’s confirmation. Either possibility is dismal in terms of respect for our First Amendment and the Constitution.

Continue reading

Losing the Life They Once Knew: The Harrowing Plight of Coptic Christians

by Lela Gilbert

October 14, 2020

We are the Church of Martyrs” is a phrase heard over and over in conversations with young Copts,” writes Martin Mosebach, author of the profound and powerful book, The 21: A Journey into the Land of Coptic Martyrs. He provides a detailed portrait of each of the 21 men who died on a Libyan beach—all but one Egyptian, beheaded by ISIS on February 15, 2015.

It is the honorary title of the Coptic Church but has also been undeniably prophetic. For throughout history, the Copts have been given countless opportunities to maintain their status as just that: a fellowship of martyrs.”

So it was in 2015 for those faithful Christian men who refused to deny their faith at the cost of their lives, and so the threat remains today in their homeland.

Although some international observers, such as USCIRF, have noted that Christian persecution in Egypt seems to have diminished somewhat in recent years, they are also obliged to note that it most certainly has not disappeared. On Friday, October 9, Premier Christian News reported, “A mob of extremists have attacked the homes of Coptic Christians in the Egyptian village of Dabous. The attack occurred after a wedding taking place in a neighboring village was interrupted by two young Muslim extremists, who bullied and beat a 10-year-old Coptic Christian child.” 

The beating of an innocent child was too much to bear for the those who watched. International Christian Concern explained, “Some Christian adults subsequently confronted the two attackers. Mina, a 25-year-old resident of the village, explained to ICC‘The cause of the story was that two Muslim men who don’t belong to our village beat a young Coptic kid. The Coptic men didn’t accept that.’ The confrontation became violent and resulted in the Muslim individuals receiving injuries.”

Unsurprisingly, the upheaval continued into the next day, when the Muslim men retaliated. Before the dust settled, there had been extensive property damage and many wounds. There were calls for a “reconciliation” meeting, a sort of false attempt at diplomacy in which both sides of a dispute are called upon to bear equal responsibility for the harm done. Meanwhile, the guilty parties are never required to pay the price for their initial provocation.

Open Doors’ World Watch explains, “Many Egyptian Christians encounter substantial roadblocks to living out their faith. There are violent attacks that make news headlines around the world, but there are also quieter, more subtle forms of duress that burden Egyptian believers. Particularly in rural areas in northern Egypt, Christians have been chased from villages, and subject to mob violence and intense familial and community pressure. This is even more pronounced for Christians who are converts from Islam.”

Clearly illustrated by the recent story about Dabous, Egyptian males are often responsible for various assaults and violent outbursts. But all too often, it is Christian females who pay the highest price for their faith. And far too many continue to suffer in silence.

As I have reported elsewhere, Egypt’s Christian girls and women continue to face a silent epidemic of kidnapping, rape, beatings, and torture. Innumerable girls and women vanish forever, and even if they are somehow rescued, their stories are thought to be so shameful that they’re hidden as dark family secrets. Sometimes doctors are able to quietly repair internal damage and “restore virginity” to the abused. Priests, if made aware of the situation, may try to protect family reputations when the girls return.

But the devastated survivors will never be the same.

The attacks vary—some happen randomly, when a vulnerable female is spotted walking alone on a sidewalk. Other are plotted by Islamist consortiums, who pay kidnappers as much $3,000 per girl. The assailants rape the victims, hold them in captivity, then demand that the terrified young women convert to Islam—often violently abusing them until they surrender.

For more years than can be counted, it has remained true that Egypt’s Copts belong to a “fellowship of martyrdom.” Not all of them are murdered—like those beheaded on a distant beach, or blown apart in bombed churches. But too many Christians have lost the life they once knew—whether it has been stolen by fanatical kidnappers, or violated by thugs, or simply reduced to a struggle for survival by constant threats of Islamist violence.

Continue reading

Christian Voting Myth #4: “I’m Not in the Majority Where I Live, So Why Bother?”

by Joseph Backholm

October 14, 2020

This is the final part of a 4-part series debunking four common myths Christians use to not vote. Read myth #1: “One Vote Doesn’t Make a Difference”; myth #2: “God Is in Charge Anyway So It Doesn’t Matter if I Vote” and myth #3: “I Don’t Like Either Candidate, So What’s the Point?”

It’s election season, and with every election comes polling. And with every poll comes the quest for 51 percent. After all, just one more vote than the other guy and I win. The fact that the person with the most votes wins elections is the reason most of us believe that the majority wins. But is it true? Not entirely. Here’s why.

In the United States, the population is 327 million people. But not everyone who lives in America can vote in elections. To be eligible to vote, you have to be a citizen, at least 18 years old, and, in most places, not a felon.

Out of 327 million people, only 253 million are eligible voters. But that doesn’t mean all of them are voters. In fact, of the 253 million eligible voters, only 153 million are registered voters. That means less than half the U.S. population is a registered voter. But that’s not all. Not every registered voter actually votes. In 2016, 137 million people voted, but they didn’t all vote in every race. Only 127 million votes were cast for president.

Put it all together, and we learn that 54 percent of eligible voters and less than 42 percent of Americans voted.

As a result, Donald Trump was elected president with just under 63 million votes. That’s right. The President of the United States was chosen by only 25 percent of eligible voters and less than 20 percent of the population. That doesn’t represent a majority of Americans, that represents a majority of Americans who voted.

This phenomenon is true in every election and in every race around the country. Even candidates who win comfortably aren’t getting support from a majority of their constituents.

In 2018, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf won comfortably with over 57 percent of the vote, but he received the votes of only 22 percent of his constituents.  

The lack of participation in every election is magnified in close elections. In 2017, a Virginia House of Delegates race ended in a tie after more than 23,000 ballots were cast. Even one more person deciding to vote would have made a tremendous difference.

In 2016, a New Mexico State House seat was decided by two votes out of 14,000 ballots cast. Two votes made a big difference there.

In more local races, the drop-off rate increases, meaning that races are decided by a smaller number of total votes and a smaller percentage of the electorate. State legislative races are often decided by less than 10 percent of the people in a district. School board races are commonly decided by less than five percent of the people affected. Sometimes it’s closer to one percent.

So, yes. It’s true that the majority wins elections, it’s just not the whole story. Elections are not decided by a majority of a country, state, or city, they’re decided by a majority of those who actually participate.

According to George Barna, 61 percent of eligible evangelicals voted in the 2016 election. This means that almost 40 percent did not vote. In other words, four out of 10 people you go to church with do not vote when given the opportunity. 

Despite this, the church still has a disproportionate impact. According to Pew Research, in the 2018 election, white evangelicals were 26 percent of all voters despite being only 15 percent of the population. Imagine the impact the church could have if everyone did their part.  

The point is, participate. It isn’t hard but it is important. If you’re not registered to vote, get registered. If you don’t usually vote, fill out your ballot. Don’t worry that not everyone in your community agrees with you, that may not even matter. After all, it’s not the majority who wins, it’s the majority of those who actually show up. It’s our job to show up.

Continue reading

Roe Isn’t Super … or Super-Precedent

by Katherine Beck Johnson

October 13, 2020

In the second day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing, many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), questioned the Supreme Court nominee about the concept of “super-precedent.” Barrett has previously written that seven cases are currently understood by legal academics as super-precedent, including Brown v. Board of Education. She defined super-precedent as “cases that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with the interpretative premises from which the precedent proceeds.” Barrett said at the hearing that, according to this definition, Roe v. Wade does not qualify as super-precedent.

When asked why Brown is super-precedent and Roe is not, Barrett explained that Brown is super-precedent because the Supreme Court decided that the “separate but equal doctrine” is unconstitutional and because the American people have accepted the Court’s decision as settled law. Segregation is a horrible stain on our nation’s history. Thankfully, it is now accepted that racism and segregation is a moral evil that will no longer be tolerated in our country. Because there are no legal challenges advocating for segregation, Brown is clearly settled law.

Barrett said Roe does not qualify as super-precedent because the American people have not accepted this Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. She is right. Many American people believe abortion is a moral evil that should not be tolerated in our country. The Republican Party platform supports a human life amendment to the Constitution clarifying that the unborn are protected by the 14th Amendment. The March for Life, which draws hundreds of thousands of people from all over the country, takes place every January in Washington, D.C. on the anniversary of Roe.  

Quite significantly, a number of states have passed strong pro-life laws in recent years, and there are also numerous lawsuits currently challenging abortion.

Last year, Alabama passed a comprehensive law affirming and protecting human life at all stages—a model for how to fully protect life. States have defunded abortion and abortionists. Other states like Colorado are proposing ballot measures to protect life this fall. Certain states like Nebraska have passed dismemberment bans, and others have passed laws protecting the dignity of the remains of the unborn. Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ohio have all passed heartbeat bills. These bills seek to prohibit abortion when a heartbeat can be detected, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy. States have passed laws that aim to protect the targeting of children with Down syndrome in the womb or other special needs. States have passed laws protecting children from being aborted simply because of their race or gender. The eugenic act of ending children’s lives based on their identity is another reason why many Americans refuse to accept Roe as settled law.

By contrast, no major party has a platform advocating for segregation. No states are calling for segregation to be legalized. There is no annual march in support of segregation. The notion of “separate but equal” is viewed by Americans as being unconstitutional. Therefore, Brown deserves to be deemed super-precedent.

While our country has overcome the evil of segregation, the stain of abortion is still with us. Many Americans long for a day when abortion’s unconstitutionality is settled law, and the most vulnerable among us are protected under the law. Until that day, we will continue to fight for the unborn to have the right to life. As long as Americans refuse to accept it, Roe will remain unsettled law that does not deserve to be considered super-precedent. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is correct when she says Roe v. Wade is not super-precedent.

Continue reading

The Left’s (Real) Issue with Amy Coney Barrett

by Joseph Backholm

October 13, 2020

Those who oppose President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court understand that Trump is basically starting on third base. She was confirmed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals only three years ago, which means she was recently vetted and most of the Republicans have already voted to confirm her. Even Mitt Romney seems amiable. If Trump didn’t have the votes to confirm quickly, he wouldn’t have nominated her.

Furthermore, there’s a political risk in opposing her as aggressively as they might want. Mrs. Barrett is about to be the most famous soccer mom in America, and if they treat her the way they treated Brett Kavanaugh, that won’t be received well. They may not want to give Trump the chance to run to the defense of America’s most famous soccer mom. But the benefits of decency might be outweighed by the need for outrage. They might give Barrett the Kavanaugh treatment regardless of how it looks because their base may insist on it.

The base of the Democratic Party is very, very angry. They want to see their rage reflected in those they sent to Washington, D.C. If the Senate simply acknowledges that Barrett has the votes and decides to take the high road, that could be interpreted as weakness and an unwillingness to fight. So the dilemma for Senate Democrats is this: do we repeat the Kavanaugh spectacle and risk alienating suburban women, or do we act like adults and risk alienating our base?

Whatever degree of outrage we see, it is not artificial. Despite the politics, they aren’t pretending to be angry and it isn’t a game. They’re genuinely upset.

They’re upset about abortion. Whatever accusations may surface about the puppies she has tortured and the secret racism her adoption of black kids is clearly trying to hide, they aren’t really worried about puppies and racism. They’re terrified that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Roe v. Wade is to the Left what John 3:16 is to Christians; it’s the promise that no matter what happens in life, it’s not a permanent problem. The prospect of losing Roe is more than simply a difference in policy.

But that’s not all. They are also concerned that well into the future, people will be able to do and say things they object to. They are concerned that bakers and florists who prefer not to decorate for same-sex weddings will retain the freedom to choose. They are also concerned that Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United will allow people to say things they dislike without restrictions. The world they envision is “tolerant,” but they can’t create a “tolerant” world if people are allowed to do and say things they view as “intolerant.” If people retain the freedom to do and say things they dislike, the world they long to see can’t be realized. That world requires them to control the Supreme Court so that the First Amendment protects only the freedom of worship—not the freedom of religion—and only sometimes guarantees the freedom of speech, but definitely not when it’s “hate speech.”

But there’s a final point as well that makes the appointment of a young, devout Catholic “originalist” especially galling. It is foreseeable that Amy Coney Barrett would be on the Supreme Court for 30 years or more. This is troubling because many on the Left sincerely believe that people like her are on the verge of extinction. In their world, religious conservatives are a small and dwindling minority who will simply disappear with the passage of time.

When they sing John Lennon’s “Imagine,” they actually imagine it. They see growing secularization as proof that Lennon’s world with no countries, no wars, and no religions is just around the corner. In that world, everyone will be happy. In that world, people like Amy Coney Barrett are on the ash heap of history, not on the Supreme Court. Barrett isn’t just a Supreme Court nominee with a different judicial philosophy, she represents a renewal of ideas that the Left wants to believe are on the verge of extinction.

Politically, they understand that this nomination is likely to be confirmed, but they will not go quietly into that good night, because Amy Coney Barrett represents a value system they believe is the source of all wars, bigotry, and substance abuse issues in the LGBT community. They believe she will cause careers to be ruined by unwanted pregnancies and deaths from back-alley abortions. They believe it is a matter of life and death—that’s why they will act like it’s a matter of life and death.

Continue reading

The Courage and Faith of Hong Kong Freedom Fighter Jimmy Lai

by Arielle Del Turco

October 12, 2020

What first drove Jimmy Lai—now an internationally-known media tycoon and a high-profile pro-democracy activist from Hong Kong—to seek answers in the Christian faith? Probably not what you might expect. In an interview with the Napa Institute last week, Lai’s answer to that question began with the story of the British handover of Hong Kong in 1997.

Before the handover, Hong Kong’s citizens enjoyed fundamental freedoms and ample opportunity under British rule that citizens of mainland China did not. When Lai was just 12 years old, he fled from mainland China to Hong Kong as a stowaway to seek the opportunities provided by the city’s freedoms. Starting as a child laborer, he worked his way up the corporate ladder and became a successful businessman in his own right.

By 1997, Lai had become a prominent critic of the Chinese Communist Party. He knew that with the Chinese government encroaching on Hong Kong, “if they had to arrest ten people, I would be one of them.” Lai said, “This fear prompted me to look for God.”

At midnight on July 1, 1997, Hong Kong formally came under the Chinese Communist Party’s jurisdiction. The following day, Lai joined the Catholic Church under the leadership of then-Bishop Joseph Zenz.

Now that the Chinese government is seeking even greater control over Hong Kong, Lai is once again facing the threat of imprisonment, due to his position as a pro-democracy advocate.

When China imposed a new national security law for Hong Kong in June, the Chinese government expanded its power to crack down on anyone it deems a national security threat. But in China, a threat to “national security” often means a threat to the Party. In August of this year, Lai was arrested under the new law for “collusion with foreign powers” due to his pro-democracy advocacy. His sons were also arrested at their homes. The same day, over 200 police officers raided Lai’s pro-democracy newspaper, Apple Daily.

Though Lai is currently released on bail, he could receive a minimum of 10 years in jail if he is convicted on that charge. But these developments were not altogether surprising for Lai. In an op-ed published in late May, he wrote, “I have feared that one day the Chinese Communist Party would grow tired not only of Hong Kong’s free press but also of its free people. That day has come.”

Lai has British citizenship, and he can easily escape the tense environment in Hong Kong and the new risks that come with living there. Yet, his conviction requires him to stay. He told the Napa Institute, “If I go away, I not only give up my destiny, I give up God, I give up my religion, I give up what I believe in.”

Religious freedom is a foremost consideration as Lai continues to advocate for democracy and the rule of law in Hong Kong. The Chinese government’s war on faith is ramping up, and Lai suggests this crackdown is part of the Party’s goal to further consolidate and secure its own power. He notes, “Once you don’t have a religion, you can easily be dictated by their order.”

Though the risks are higher than ever for this 71-year-old self-made entrepreneur, he continues to advocate for freedom and finds purpose in doing so. As he faces an uncertain future, his reflections are significant and ought to inspire us all: “When you lift yourself above your own self-interest, you find the meaning of life. You find you’re doing the right thing, which is so wonderful. It changed my life into a different thing.”

Continue reading

Christian Voting Myth #3: “I Don’t Like Either Candidate, So What’s the Point?”

by Joseph Backholm

October 12, 2020

This is part 3 of a 4-part series debunking four common myths Christians use to not vote. Read myth #1: “One Vote Doesn’t Make a Difference”myth #2: “God Is in Charge Anyway So It Doesn’t Matter if I Vote”; and myth #4 “I’m Not in the Majority Where I Live, So Why Bother?”

In an ideal world, you would always have the option to vote for really great people that you agree with in every respect. In the real world, however, your ballot may give you choices that make you feel less like you’re choosing someone to represent your values and more like you are choosing a cancer treatment. In that situation, what you want most is a different option. But sometimes there is no different option. What should you do then?

For a lot of people, the answer is “nothing.” Instead of voting, they choose to be absent from the process, absolve themselves of responsibility, and blame God for allowing it to come to this.

One reason it’s sometimes difficult to vote is because we want to support someone without reservation. On social media, we “like” people that we care about, things that makes us laugh, or ideas that we agree with. Our “like” is our stamp of approval. If we only like it a little bit, we’re likely to move on to something else.

There’s a temptation to treat our ballot the same way. If we can’t give unqualified support, we are tempted to abstain and wait for something better. But voting is not like social media. It’s more like filling a job vacancy. The job has to be filled and the Constitution has dictated the timeline. The fact that you haven’t found the ideal candidate may be frustrating, but it is not relevant to the fact that the job is going to be filled.

Your desire to find someone you can give unqualified support to is noted but not especially helpful under the circumstances. In that situation, it may be more helpful to think less about good and bad and more about better or worse. Is that possible? Maybe.

Character always matters, but if a completely virtuous person is not one of your choices, maybe the policies represented by one candidate are more virtuous than the policies of the other candidates. Is one candidate working on behalf of the abortion industry while the other works to defend life? Does one candidate defend conscience rights while the other supports suing nuns and churches that live out their faith? Does one candidate want parents involved in their child’s education and health care decisions while the other wants the state to interfere with parental rights? In a situation where all the candidates are flawed, we might be able to find clarity if we allow ourselves to think less about people involved and more about policies that will be affected.

In addition, if there is no “best candidate,” it may be helpful to think about the “best team.” No politician works alone. Most candidates are part of a political party, and all candidates have donors and supporters. Executive offices, like mayors, governors, and presidents also appoint cabinet members, judges, ambassadors, and thousands of other positions that affect how government operates.

Which candidate, for political reasons, is going to be pressured more often to do things you like and which candidate is going to face pressure to do things you won’t like? If the two foremen are not people you especially care for, is there a reason to prefer one crew over another?

Though it sometimes seems the end is near, we do still live on earth and that means we will be consistently faced with imperfect choices. It would be nice if the choice was always clearly good or evil, but it’s not. Sometimes the choice is better or worse, and if you aren’t willing to choose better, you may find yourself stuck with worse.

Read myth #4: “I’m Not in the Majority Where I Live, So Why Bother?”

Continue reading

FRC’s Top 7 Trending Items (Week of October 4)

by Family Research Council

October 9, 2020

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

1. Update: Biden Staffer on SCOTUS: Christians Need Not Apply

In a recent eye-opening exchange, one of the Biden campaign staffers seemed appalled that Amy Coney Barrett’s resume includes a stint as a trustee of an Indiana Catholic school. The scandal, at least to liberals, isn’t that the school is Catholic—but that it upholds Catholic beliefs.

2. Blog: Christian Voting Myth #2: “God Is in Charge Anyway So It Doesn’t Matter if I Vote”

Anyone who has spent 15 minutes around a church during election season has heard someone say something to the likes of, “Don’t worry about the election. It doesn’t really matter what happens because God is in control.” In part 2 of our 4-part series dedicated to debunking common Christian voting myths we unpack the myth: “God Is in Charge Anyway So It Doesn’t Matter if I Vote.”

3. Publication: Why Amy Coney Barrett Should Be Confirmed to the Supreme Court

For the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has increasingly stepped outside of its limited role in our constitutional order and amassed great power for itself at the expense of the people. By now, the Court has almost become an unchallengeable, unreviewable super-legislature. For this reason, it is all the more important to appoint Supreme Court justices who believe in separation of powers.

4. Resource: Pray Vote Stand Voter Guides

In this important season for our nation, it is imperative as Christians that we seek the Lord first as we look to vote for biblical values and stand for truth. Make sure this election season you know where the candidates on your ballot stand on the issues that matter to you. Check out FRC Action’s voter guides to be “in the know.”

5. Washington Watch: Midland Mayor Patrick Payton believes Bob Fu’s effectiveness on China is what’s driving the protests

Patrick Payton, Mayor of Midland, Texas, joined Tony Perkins to discuss his efforts to stand up to those harassing Bob Fu, the president of China Aid and FRC’s Senior Fellow for International Religious Freedom.

6. Washington WatchTyler O’Neil wonders when mainstream religious beliefs will become ‘disqualifiers’ for public office

Tyler O’Neil, Senior Editor of PJ Media, joined Tony Perkins to discuss a Joe Biden staffer saying traditional religious beliefs should be ‘taboo’ and ‘disqualifiers’ for public office.

7. Pray Vote Stand broadcast: Education

On this edition of Pray Vote Stand, Tony welcomed Pastor Brad Jurkovich, Maria Keffler, Mary Rice Hasson, and Jonathan Cahn to take a look at the presidential candidates’ education plans and what they mean for the future of school choice, sex education, religious schools, privacy, American history, and even team sports.

For more from FRC, visit our website at frc.org, our blog at frcblog.com, 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.

Family Research Council’s vision is a prevailing culture in which all human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives. Join us to learn about FRC’s work and see how you can help advance faith, family, and freedom.

Continue reading

House Resolution Coerces Members to Support Abortion Rights

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP , Ruth Moreno

October 9, 2020

Earlier this month, a former employee at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Georgia filed a complaint to the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that hysterectomies were being performed on detainees at the Irwin County Detention Center without appropriate informed consent. The U.S. House of Representatives has responded by passing a resolution condemning all perpetrators and calling for them to be held accountable.

House Resolution 1153, led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), justly condemns the performance of “unwanted, unnecessary medical procedures on individuals without their full, informed consent.” Unfortunately, House Democrats couldn’t resist inserting partisan language into what ought to have been a straightforward and bipartisan resolution. The resolution’s second clause states that “everyone deserves to control their own reproductive choices and make informed choices about their bodies.” This begs the question: to what kinds of reproductive choices is the clause referring? The Democrat-controlled House most likely intends the so-called “right” to abortion, ignoring the rights of the unborn in the same breath as condemning ICE for violating the rights of women.

This resolution would not be the first time Democrats have embraced antithetical positions regarding human rights violations and abortion. Although Democrats insist human rights and abortion are one and the same, abortion is the very opposite of human rights, because every successful abortion ends a human life. It should also be noted that the abortion industry, which has long backed Democrat candidates, has a troubled history with eugenics. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist who viewed abortion and birth control as a means of controlling the population of the “unfit.” While Planned Parenthood’s current leadership may publicly disavow eugenics, many of its abortion facilities are situated in minority communities, and women of color are statistically much more likely to obtain abortions in the U.S. than white women.

Democrats are also slow to condemn the atrocity of forced abortion, which happens in many nations around the world, including the most populous country, China. Even here in America, many women who obtain abortions report having felt coerced into that decision by friends, family members, or boyfriends.

In many parts of the world, unborn children are aborted due to unwanted physical or mental disabilities, or even for being female. Iceland prides itself on having nearly “eradicated” Down syndrome, but in reality, the only reason the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased in that country is because children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero are often killed prior to birth via abortion. In India, where sex-selective abortion is rampant, a new study has shown that there might be as many as 6.8 million fewer girls than boys born between 2017 and 2030.

House Democrats are right to condemn the practice of forcing hysterectomies on non-consenting women. The allegations raised against ICE at the Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia should be thoroughly investigated to ensure that all offenders are brought to justice. By dragging abortion into H.Res. 1153, however, Democrats have created a needless roadblock to bipartisanship while also highlighting their hypocrisy on the issue of human rights.

In response to the partisan H.Res. 1153, Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) introduced the Informed Consent Act (H.R. 8498), which would prohibit any abortion or sterilization procedure performed without informed consent and impose a 10-year penalty on anyone who violates this provision. The issue of forced abortion and sterilization should not be co-opted as a means of promoting legal abortion. If Democrats truly had women’s best interests in mind, they would support H.R. 8498 and condemn any violence done to women and their unborn children.

Continue reading

Who Can We Look to as Examples of Christian Citizenship?

by Molly Carman

October 9, 2020

Most people are citizens of someplace, either by birth or by choice, and with citizenship comes certain responsibilities. But what does it mean to be a good citizen? And how should Christians balance their primary allegiance to the kingdom of heaven with their earthly obligations to their communities and countries? This six-part blog series, produced under the direction of David Closson, FRC’s Director of Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview, aims to explore how Christians can best steward these responsibilities from a biblical worldview. Learn more at FRC.org/worldview.

This is the final part of a 6-part series. Read part 1part 2part 3, part 4, and part 5.

Now that we have an understanding of what good Christian citizenship is, let’s consider the good examples set by individuals who lived for the glory of God and loved their neighbors well. Isaac Newton once attributed his scientific success to “standing on the shoulders of giants” who had gone before him. Likewise, we can press on toward being better citizens because others have already laid down a strong foundation for us to build upon.

In the first installment of this series on citizenship, the question was posed, “What does it mean to be a Christian citizen?” A biblical example of godly citizenship is Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew midwives described in the book of Exodus. The pharaoh who had enslaved the children of Israel feared an uprising, so to reduce the male population, he commanded Shiphrah and Puah to kill any sons born to the Hebrews. Because “the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Exodus 1:17), the Lord blessed them for their faithfulness. The women modeled good citizenship because they prioritized the kingdom of heaven over their citizenship of Egypt while seeking the well-being of their neighbors.

The second installment of this series talked about discerning the differences between good and bad citizenship, and explained why being a good citizen of heaven sometimes necessitates being a “bad” citizen of earth. In another biblical example, Esther risked her life to save her people from mass genocide. Esther was the queen of Persia, and her identity as a Jew was not public. Rather than seek her own safety, however, she chose to consider the well-being of others and went to the king uninvited to plead for the lives of her people, the Jews. Her selfless act made her a good citizen of heaven, despite temporarily making her a “bad” citizen of Persia.

The third installment of this series explained why good citizens are essential for any community to flourish and why good citizenship often requires courage and determination to uphold the truth. During World War II, the Nazis began an indoctrination program called Hitler’s Youth. However, some young people resisted Nazi indoctrination. One such young woman was Sophie Scholl (pictured above). She took a stand against the regime and gave her life at the age of 22 because she dared to open the eyes of her peers with her words. We need good citizens like Sophie, who are willing to risk everything for the truth.

The fourth installment of this series emphasized the importance of raising and discipling good citizens. Many Christians are familiar with the Wesley brothers, John and Charles. Their mother, Susanna Wesley, is an excellent model of faithful discipleship. Susanna had 19 children, half of whom did not live to adulthood, due to sickness, accidents, and a house fire. Her husband was often away traveling for the church, so most of the child-rearing responsibilities fell to Susanna. She was determined to disciple her children in the Lord and lead them in family worship, reading and memorizing Scripture, and daily prayer. Her dedication to her children impacted countless people and communities, as she successfully raised good Christian citizens who would grow up to change the world.

The fifth installment of this series discussed whether it is appropriate for Christians to have patriotic loyalties for their earthly nations. The apostle Paul wrestled with this when he said, “If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ” (Philippians 3:4b-7). Paul was a proud Hebrew and Jew. There was nothing wrong with feeling an affection for and delight in his heritage, but Paul recognized that he must boast in what Christ has done first.

There are countless more historical examples of individuals who have balanced good citizenship to earthly kingdoms and the kingdom of heaven. May we look to their example and aspire to be good citizens ourselves. This world is not our permanent home; we are citizens of heaven. But we must steward our time on earth well and consider the work that God has for us to do. May we all be good citizens who are engaged in this fall’s elections and our communities year-round. Whatever we do, in word or deed, we should do it all for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31 and Colossians 3:17).

Continue reading

Archives