FRC Blog

Coronavirus, Education, and Tofu: Why Choice is the Solution to the Education Conundrum

by Joseph Backholm

August 4, 2020

The coronavirus has been disruptive to our politics, our economy, and even our decency, but perhaps nothing has been disrupted as significantly as our education system.

Harvard has already announced that it will be conducting all classes remotely for the 2020-21 school year. Meanwhile, a battle is forming between school districts, parents, and teachers’ unions over the best way to do education in elementary, middle, and high schools in the age of corona.  

In Florida, the teachers union has sued the state over the governor’s attempts to require school districts to provide in-class instruction. The nation’s second-largest teachers union has authorized its teachers to strike if school districts do not meet certain demands like requiring masks or updating ventilation systems.  

Parents not only want their children to resume their educational pursuits; in many cases, they need somewhere to send their children so they can work. Not all families are wanting the same thing. Some parents think schools should resume as normal because children are in a low-risk category from the virus. Other families, whose children or close relatives are vulnerable, are either removing their children completely or insisting on a range of challenging or expensive modifications to school routines and buildings.

Meanwhile, school districts face a dilemma. If they choose online education, many families will leave. If they opt for in-class instruction, teachers may refuse to teach. For schools, there seems to be no right answer. But there could be. As sticky as this dilemma is, it’s made much more complicated by the fact that families are generally denied options about where to spend their education dollars.

In other contexts, this scenario isn’t particularly unusual or difficult. If McDonald’s replaces all their meat patties with tofu, vegans will descend on McDonald’s, and everyone else will go to Wendy’s or Burger King. It may require a change in routine, but ultimately everyone will get what they want because everyone has the freedom to spend their lunch money at the place that will give them what they’re looking for.

For reasons that are almost entirely political, education doesn’t work this way. While tax money is allotted for each student, students are almost always told where they can go, not asked where they want to go. Only those with enough money to look outside the public school system have real options. We are so accustomed to a choiceless education system that many of us have not paused to consider how strange it is. We would march on Washington if our health insurance providers told us they would only cover medical treatment at the hospital closest to our house.

There’s no way for schools to meet the unique needs of every family as they navigate this global challenge, but they shouldn’t have to. Families, schools, and teachers each need the freedom to do what’s best for them, but the law says they can’t. Families aren’t allowed to choose the school that’s best for them, and schools are forbidden from hiring teachers who are a good fit for the educational approach they will choose. As a result, schools are stuck with teachers who may refuse to work, and families are stuck with schools that may not have teachers.

If the education market worked like any other market, our present dilemma would still be challenging, but it would be solvable. As it is, we’re heading for a showdown that will end with nearly everyone being frustrated.

State legislatures should be calling special sessions immediately to allow families the freedom to choose the education that works best for their unique situation. One-size-fit-all solutions to education are always a problem, but right now, they’re especially harmful. Families must be empowered to solve this problem for themselves because they’re the only ones who can. If state legislatures don’t do this, they shouldn’t expect education in the age of corona to go well. People don’t enjoy being told they have only one option if that option doesn’t work for them. It’s like being told you have one option for a burger and learning they only sell tofu.

Continue reading

Zuckerberg’s Two-Faced Support of “Free Expression” and Censorship of Therapy

by Peter Sprigg

August 4, 2020

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) grilled the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook about censorship of conservative voices online in a congressional hearing July 29. He asked each if they were “concerned about the ‘cancel culture’ mob and what it’s up to.”

Here is what Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg said in reply:

Yes, Congressman. I believe strongly in free expression. Giving people a voice is an important part of what our services do, and I’m very worried about some of the forces of illiberalism that I see in this country that are pushing against free expression. I think that this is one of the fundamental democratic traditions that we have in our country. And it’s how we make progress over the long term on a number of issues. And our company is committed to doing what we can to protect people’s voice.

If Zuckerberg means what he said in his sworn testimony to Congress, step one would be to immediately reverse his company’s decision to “cancel” all content supportive of sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts (SOCE or GICE)—usually referred to by its critics as “conversion therapy.”

According to news reports, on July 10, a spokesperson for Facebook and Instagram, Tara Hopkins, their public policy director for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, issued a statement saying that Facebook would remove all content promoting so-called “conversion therapy.” CNN reported that this was an expansion of Facebook’s “existing policies on hate speech worldwide.”

Ms. Hopkins reportedly said,

We don’t allow attacks against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity and are updating our policies to ban the promotion of conversion therapy services.

It’s puzzling that an offer to help willing participants achieve their own personally-chosen goal of overcoming unwanted same-sex attractions or becoming comfortable with their biological sex would be considered an “attack against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

On the other hand, it seems logical that “attacks against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity” would include attacks upon people who self-identify as ex-gay based upon their sexual orientation (as well as attacks against people who formerly identified as transgendered but who have de-transitioned based upon their gender identity).

But Facebook’s new policy is not prevention against attacks on individuals self-identifying as ex-gay—it is apparently the successful result of them. The announcement of the new policy follows a systematic campaign of social media attacks upon a U.K. man named Mike Davidson and his organization Core Issues Trust (CIT). These attacks were waged precisely because of Davidson’s self-identified sexual orientation as ex-gay.

It is particularly ironic that Mr. Davidson is being accused of “hate speech,” given the communications he has received from his critics:

CIT’s Facebook page has been barraged with pornographic images — some suggesting pederasty — from activists posting to CIT’s account. . .  

A phone text received by Mike Davidson, who leads both groups, told him, “Kill yourself… I hope you drop dead.  I hope you and your family are raped and killed. Do it. Kill yourself. Just do it.”

Ms. Hopkins of Facebook goes on:

We are always reviewing our policies and will continue to consult with experts and people with personal experiences to inform our approach.

I’m not aware of Facebook consulting with any therapists who actually conduct sexual orientation change efforts—although they would seem to be the people with the most “expertise” on the subject. Nor does Facebook seem to have consulted with people whose “personal experiences” include having benefited from undertaking sexual orientation change efforts. Facebook’s “approach” will not be “informed” if they listen to only one viewpoint.

Another news report, in the LGBT publication the Washington Blade, says:

Mathew Shurka, co-founder of Born Perfect, a project run by him and the National Center for Lesbian Rights that is dedicated to ending conversion therapy, worked with Instagram and Facebook to create a system to identify content promoting the practice.

Shurka is an LGBT activist who has told legislatures a far-fetched tale that when he attended a weekend retreat with an ex-gay ministry called Journey Into Manhood, “Not everyone walked out alive.” As the National Task Force for Therapy Equality has noted,

Perhaps the most disturbing part of Shurka’s testimony is that no one, not even the press, asked him why he didn’t report the so-called “deaths” that occurred during his experience with Journey Into Manhood. Surely, if a crime, suicide, or homicide had occurred, a police report would have been filed. Yet, these stories continue to be recorded as testimony in front of state legislatures and printed in gay activist media outlets . . .

So Facebook consulted with a political activist on only one side of a controversial issue (one of dubious credibility), and then announced a sweeping new policy of complete censorship without even consulting the other side.

Now, an article posted by Media Matters suggested some organizations they think Facebook should censor under the new policy. To illustrate its point, the article featured some of the social media content these organizations have posted. Ironically, the 17 (!) posts effectively debunk much of what is usually said by those seeking to ban SOCE.

One of them said,

My change has meant I have been able to fulfill my desire to remain with my wife and family . . .

Is this an unworthy goal? Can any sensible person call it “hate speech?”

Another one said,

It is … unethical for therapists to impose their agendas on clients.

One would think that would be a key point of common ground with critics of SOCE. Is it “hate speech?”

Another one said,

This therapy does not attempt to change an individual from being gay to straight, but rather it helps an individual to heal from past hurts and fear.

Again, heavy-handed attempts “to change an individual from being gay to straight” are what the critics are concerned about. This post ought to be reassuring. Does Facebook consider it “hate speech?”

I’ve learned of at least one Christian ministry in the U.S. that has had their entire Facebook page removed as of July 23. It’s called “Healing for the Soul.”

What does Facebook have against “Healing for the Soul?”

More to the point—where’s the “aversion therapy?” The electric shocks? Where’s the coercion—especially of minors? Where are the sweeping guarantees of immediate, total transformation? Where are the licensed mental health providers saying all you have to do is “pray away the gay?” Where’s the “shaming” of people with same-sex attractions? Where are all the horror stories that are regularly trotted out to justify imposing unprecedented legal restrictions upon the goals of private psychotherapy?

Where’s the “homophobia?” Where’s the “hate?”

It seems pretty clear to me that the reason the LGBT activists are concerned about what’s on Facebook is not because people are finding “lies” about “conversion therapy” there—it’s because they are afraid people may find the truth, unfiltered by the distortions of LGBT activists and their lackeys in the “mainstream” media.

Continue reading

Remembering ISIS’ Yazidi Genocide, Six Years Later

by Arielle Del Turco

August 3, 2020

Six years ago today, ISIS invaded the Sinjar region in northern Iraq, the quiet homeland of the Yazidi people. It only took a few hours for ISIS to seize Sinjar City and kidnap or kill all who were unable to flee in time. Those who did manage to escape ran to Mount Sinjar without food, water, or medical care, with ISIS hot on their heels.

An ancient religious group familiar with being persecuted by their neighbors, Yazidis had lived simple lives in the rural region. But the attacks by ISIS would have long-lasting consequences.

It took U.S. airstrikes to push the ISIS militants back as Kurdish forces made a safe passageway for Yazidis to descend Mount Sinjar later that month. But in the heat well over 100 degrees, hundreds of Yazidis—many of them children and infants—had already died on the mountain despite airdrops with aid from the U.S. and other military forces.

Meanwhile, ISIS attacked Yazidi villages in the surrounding area. Upon capture, the men and women were separated. The men who refused to convert to Islam were rounded up to be shot and killed. Captured women and children often heard the gunfire that killed the men of the village and saw the evidence of mass murder as ISIS fighters returned with their clothes stained by the blood of their husbands, sons, and brothers.

Militants took many of the younger women to be bought and sold as sex slaves. Women too old to enter the slave trade were shot. The region was soon littered with mass graves.

Yazidi children were forcibly converted to Islam. Thousands of boys were forced to become ISIS fighters, tortured and starved in the process. Today, many of these former child soldiers are missing arms or legs lost while fighting for their abductors.

ISIS made no secret of its desire to destroy the religious minority group it called “pagan” through the use of forced conversion, enslavement, and mass killings. The overwhelming evidence of ISIS’ intent to eradicate religious minorities prompted the United States to officially declare the Islamic State attacks on Iraq’s Christians, Yazidis, and other minorities a genocide in 2016.

Thankfully, the terrorists’ genocidal efforts were unsuccessful, and many Yazidis remain to tell the story of their people. Yet, the painful legacy of genocide lingers, and ISIS’ brutal campaign still haunts the survivors.

Today, an estimated 2,800 women and children who were kidnapped by ISIS remain missing. Hundreds of thousands of Yazidis are still displaced, living in camps with minimal resources. As U.S. officials look to develop policy and foreign aid priorities in the Middle East, every feasible effort should be made to help the survivors of genocide.

August 3, 2014 is now remembered as the day ISIS began its genocide against the Yazidi people. Most days dedicated to commemorating genocides remember atrocities that happened decades or centuries ago. This remembrance day is different because the Yazidi genocide happened a mere six years ago. The horror is still within our recent memory, and the survivors are still in need of help.

ISIS is no longer the focus of the American news cycle, but we would be remiss to forget the victims of genocide so quickly, especially those who are still in need of our help. The effects of ISIS linger. As the international community looks to maintain stability in the Middle East, consideration should be given as to how best to aid and restore the religious communities ISIS worked to destroy.

Continue reading

FRC’s Top 7 Trending Items (Week of July 26)

by Family Research Council

July 31, 2020

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

1. Washington Update: “Black Lives Matter Makes Its Marx”

How many Christians plaster “Black Lives Matter” across their social media pages not realizing that they’re supporting a group with radical beliefs? Americans are terrified that if they don’t embrace Black Lives Matter, they’ll be labeled as bigots and racists. The extremists are counting on that fear.

2. Washington Update: “Barr Brawl in the House”

House Democrats have been itching to get Attorney General William Barr on the stand for more than a year. But when that wish came true, the Left blew it as they raged, interrupted, and mocked their way through five hours of the hearing.

3. Blog: “Hope in Nebraska: Nebraska Pushes Towards Banning Dismemberment Abortions”

Recently, Nebraska’s state senators successfully brought a bill prohibiting dismemberment abortions to the legislature for debate and a vote. The author of the bill, State Senator Suzanne Geist, believes most Nebraskans will agree with the bill once they learn the horrors of dismemberment abortions.

4. Blog: “Lessons in Perseverance from the Life of William Wilberforce”

The abolition of slavery. Women’s suffrage. Civil rights for black Americans. These reforms came about through years of dedicated efforts from people who refused to quit. As we fight to protect life, family, and religious freedom, we can look to the life of William Wilberforce as inspiration, a man dedicated to the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

5. Washington Watch: Dr. Teryn Clarke worries that a political agenda is covering up the truth about the coronavirus

Dr. Teryn Clarke, one of the doctors who participated in Monday’s Tea Party Patriots news conference, joined Tony Perkins to discuss the Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter censorship of the viral video.

6. Washington Watch: Sec. Chad Wolf insists that peaceful protestors don’t commit violent crimes

Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, joined Tony Perkins to discuss the federal response to the riots in Portland and other cities, and on protestors showing up outside his home.

7. Washington Watch: Andy McCarthy insists the ACLU’s case against federal troops in Portland is as flimsy as it gets

Andy McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute, joined Sarah Perry to discuss a federal judge issuing a restraining order against federal agents tasked with protecting a federal courthouse in Portland from violent rioters.

For more from FRC, visit our website at frc.org, our blog at frcblog.com, our Facebook page, Twitter 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!

Continue reading

The World War II Memorial: A Tribute to Our Nation’s Heroes

by Sarah Rumpf

July 30, 2020

The history of the United States is preserved in archives, books, and the collective memory of the American people. It is also preserved in monuments, memorials, and statues made from marble, granite, bronze, or plaster.

Our nation’s capital is home to some of the world’s most recognizable and frequently visited monuments. This blog series will explore the events and people they commemorate, devoting particular attention to the spiritual themes depicted. By shedding light on our nation’s deep religious heritage, this series aims to inspire the next generation to emulate virtues and merits from America’s past that are worth memorializing.

FRC’s blog series on monuments is written by FRC summer interns and edited by David Closson, FRC’s Director of Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview. Be sure to read our previous post on the Lincoln Memorial.

On the National Mall, situated between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, stands the World War II Memorial. The memorial honors the 16 million men and women who served in the United States’ armed forces, the more than 400,000 who died, and the millions of civilians who supported the war effort from home. Today, the World War II Memorial is a poignant reminder of the spirit, strength, and sacrifice of the American people during the largest armed conflict in history.

World War II began in 1939 and ended in 1945. But it wasn’t until 1987 that the idea of a national monument memorializing the war was born. Roger Durbin, a World War II veteran, approached Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat from Ohio, with the suggestion. Representative Kaptur introduced the World War II Memorial Act to the House of Representatives on December 10, 1987. However, the bill did not pass in 1987, nor in 1989 or 1991, when it was reintroduced. However, on March 17, 1993, the Senate finally approved the Act, and Rep. Kaptur’s tireless advocacy finally paid off. The World War II Memorial Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on May 25, 1993, and on May 29, 2004, President George W. Bush dedicated the completed memorial.

The World War II Memorial is comprised of a pool and fountains flanked by two archway pavilions and surrounded by 56 granite pillars arranged in an oval. Each pillar stands 17 feet tall and is inscribed with the name of a U.S. state or territory. The states alternate around the oval in the order that they ratified the U.S. Constitution. The pavilions, each adorned with eagles and a laurel wreath, represent the two theaters of the war, Atlantic and Pacific. A medallion shows the striking image of Nike, goddess of victory, standing on the helmet of Mars, god of war—indicating the U.S. victory over the war. The memorial features quotes from presidents and generals throughout. One inscription from President Harry Truman states, “Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid. They have earned our undying gratitude. America will never forget their sacrifices.”

War memorials are a focal point for remembrance, both for individual families and for a collective culture, and play a vital role in ensuring that a permanent record and an everlasting tribute is appointed to lives given and affected during wartime. The World War II Memorial expresses the emotions of sacrifice, sorrow, and, eventually, victory. It acts as a historical touchstone that links the past to the present, enabling its 4.83 million annual visitors to remember and respect the sacrifices of those who fought, died, or were affected by the war.

The World War II Memorial challenges and inspires its visitors to consider the cost of the freedom that we enjoy. The sheer number of Americans who laid down their lives, marked by a wall of 4,048 gold stars, reminds us that freedom requires sacrifice. For Christians, it may evoke thoughts of the greatest sacrifice of all—Christ laying down His life for the sins of mankind. 1 John 2:2 states, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our but also for the sins of the whole world.” Without Christ sacrificing Himself for us, we have no forgiveness and no freedom from our sin.

Without monuments like the World War II Memorial, it can be easy to forget the hardships endured and sacrifices made by previous generations. Our freedom only exists today because of the brave actions of those who believed that freedom was worth tremendous sacrifice. The World War II Memorial should inspire us to fight for freedom and against injustice in our world. Moreover, if so many American heroes were willing to sacrifice their lives for our nation’s freedom, how much more should we Christians be willing to sacrifice for the spread of the gospel, which gives the ultimate freedom—freedom from sin.

Sarah Rumpf is an Events intern at Family Research Council.

Continue reading

Lessons in Perseverance from the Life of William Wilberforce

by Worth Loving

July 29, 2020

The abolition of slavery. Women’s suffrage. Civil rights for black Americans. None of these reforms happened quickly. They only came about through years of dedicated efforts from people who refused to give up, despite overwhelming odds.

As we fight to protect life, family, and religious freedom, we can find inspiration in the lives of men and women who never gave up fighting for causes they believed in. One such individual was the great statesman William Wilberforce. Wilberforce played a central role in the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, but he did not see his reforms implemented within a few weeks or months. In fact, it took decades for Wilberforce’s ultimate goals to be accomplished. He experienced many crushing defeats yet remained steadfast in his pursuit. As we work toward reforms in the present, we can learn much from the life and example of William Wilberforce.

Born into an affluent British family, Wilberforce attended St. Johns College in Cambridge, where he became close friends with future prime minister William Pitt. Raised in a Christian home, Wilberforce drifted away from his religious upbringing as a young man. In 1780, at the age of 21 and while still a student, Wilberforce was elected to Parliament. Pitt followed his friend to Parliament, becoming the youngest prime minister in British history at the age of 24.

The first few years of Wilberforce’s parliamentary career were mostly uneventful, although he was known as an eloquent speaker who frequented bars with drinking and gambling. It wasn’t until 1785 that things began to change. Influenced by his friend Isaac Milner, Wilberforce rediscovered the Christianity of his youth. Over the next few years, Wilberforce’s newfound faith sparked a strong desire for humanitarian reform. Yet Wilberforce wrestled with whether he should leave Parliament and devote himself to full-time Christian ministry. He reconnected with his childhood pastor John Newton, a former slave trader who became an influential adviser to Wilberforce. Around this time, Wilberforce was also approached by Thomas Clarkson, co-founder of the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, about taking up the cause in Parliament. Through the counsel of Newton, Pitt, Clarkson, and notable antislavery groups like the Clapham Sect, Wilberforce was persuaded that he could still do God’s work while remaining in politics. Around this time, he wrote the following in his journal: “God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners” [i.e., society].

At the time, calling for the abolition of the slave trade was deeply unpopular, given the strong economic interests many influential businessmen and members of Parliament had in the British West Indies. Over the new few years, Wilberforce and Clarkson embarked on an unprecedented public awareness campaign across Great Britain. Clarkson visited the ports where slave ships docked, taking detailed notes from crew members about the deplorable conditions slaves endured aboard ship. He also took measurements of the small quarters in which slaves were housed and gathered shackles and branding irons to demonstrate to the public how slaves were being treated. In 1787, Clarkson published a booklet titled A Summary View of the Slave Trade and of the Probable Consequences of Its Abolition, detailing the horrific conditions slaves endured while aboard the ships. Clarkson began traveling the country, distributing leaflets describing these conditions. In 1789, Wilberforce used Clarkson’s evidence in a powerful speech before the House of Commons to present his first bill for the abolition of the slave trade. While Parliament did not act on his bill, public opinion was starting to change. In 1791, the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade distributed leaflets calling upon the public to boycott sugar produced by slaves in the West Indies. Consequently, around 300,000 British citizens stopped buying the sugar, resulting in a significant loss of profit to companies that used slave labor in the West Indies.

Across the English Channel, trouble was brewing in France. Parliament was soon consumed with protecting Britain from the violent revolution engulfing France. That revolution resulted in an overthrow of the French government and eventually culminated in Napoleon’s rise to power. The British political establishment often viewed abolitionists like Wilberforce in the same light as the radicals leading the French Revolution. During this time, Wilberforce was slandered, libeled, and even received death threats. To compound his difficulties, Wilberforce battled an intestinal disease (believed today to be colitis) that prevented him from fulfilling his parliamentary duties from time to time. Despite these setbacks, Wilberforce remained resolute in his quest to end the slave trade.

Year after year, Wilberforce would present a motion in the House of Commons calling for the abolition of the slave trade. Although some of the margins were narrow, his motion was defeated every single time. Wilberforce’s motions were often defeated by fellow members of Parliament who had strong economic interests in the slave trade. In a 1791 speech, Wilberforce boldly reminded his fellow members: “Having heard all of this you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say you did not know.” But Wilberforce remained unfazed by the defeats and continued his fight with public awareness campaigns, bringing to light the horrors of the slave trade. Wilberforce and Clarkson gathered thousands of petition signatures from enraged British citizens who demanded an end to the slave trade throughout the Empire.

By 1807, public opinion was squarely in his favor, and Wilberforce had persuaded many members of Parliament. After nearly 20 years of fighting, the Slave Trade Act was passed, and Wilberforce realized one of his two “great objects”—the end of the slave trade.

Because this bill did not free currently owned slaves, Wilberforce began calling for the immediate emancipation of all slaves in the British Empire. In 1825, Wilberforce resigned his seat in Parliament due to health reasons but continued his quest to abolish slavery. On July 26, 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed by the House of Commons, effectively freeing all slaves in the British Empire. William Wilberforce died three days later with the satisfaction of knowing that the cause to which he had dedicated his life had finally been accomplished.  

Wilberforce had also worked hard on his second “great object”—the “reformation of manners.” When Wilberforce began his Parliamentary career, British society was incredibly corrupt and immoral. Workers suffered poor conditions, animals were abused, and prostitution was rampant. Wilberforce had a special place in his heart for the poor and those rejected by society. By the time he died, Great Britain was a completely different place.

For more than 50 years, Wilberforce dedicated his life to building a better Great Britain. While advocating for Christians to be involved in politics, Wilberforce once said that “a private faith that does not act in the face of oppression is no faith at all.” As Christians, we are called to engage our culture and influence others for Christ. Wilberforce never attacked his opponents but instead appealed to their conscience.

Now, 187 years since Wilberforce’s death, we can draw many parallels between Wilberforce’s battles and our current ones over abortion, religious freedom, pornography, human trafficking, and many more. Since 1973, we’ve been fighting to correct the flawed decision in Roe v. Wade. While the pro-life movement has experienced many victories, hundreds of innocent unborn children are still killed every day. The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges undermines the sacred institution of marriage. And the religious liberty of Christian business owners and government employees is under increasing attack, most recently in Bostock v. Clayton County

Despite recent setbacks, we must never give up. We can find inspiration in William Wilberforce, who faced crushing defeats and vicious attacks from his opponents but never relented his fight for what was right.  We can learn much from Wilberforce’s tenacity and his unwavering commitment to the cause to which God had called him. The fight may be long and grueling, but the ultimate reward we are seeking is well worth any struggle we face now.

Continue reading

FRC’s Efforts on Capitol Hill (Week of July 20)

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP , Laura Lee Caum

July 28, 2020

FRC wrapped up another busy week fighting for faith, family, and freedom on Capitol Hill.

The House came together — and then fell apart

The House of Representatives returned from a two-week recess with a full schedule of legislative items. On Tuesday, the House passed the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes all of the major defense programs, with broad bipartisan support. Fortunately, unlike last year, this year’s bill did not include a new family planning program with pro-life concerns or language to reshape military standards to be gender-neutral. The Senate passed their version of the NDAA on Thursday, also with broad bipartisan support. The absence of progressive policy priorities allowed Democrats and Republicans to join together in support of this year’s NDAA.

While members resisted the temptation to insert partisan priorities in the NDAA, the same could not be said of the Democrats on the Appropriations committee. The House passed the first minibus appropriations package (H.R. 7608), which includes several major pro-life and pro-family concerns. Specifically, the State and Foreign Operations section of the bill included language to repeal President Trump’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which bars funding for foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. The bill would also provide direct funding for the World Health Organization, which actively promotes abortion and a radical sex education agenda abroad. Finally, the bill would weaken a longstanding pro-life amendment that bans funding for any organization or program that promotes coercive abortions. Despite President Trump’s threat to veto any spending bills that weaken or undermine current pro-life policies, House leadership has pushed through a spending bill full of anti-life measures.

FRC priorities attacked in committee hearings

One-third of pregnancies in trans men are unintended.” That statement from the co-founder of Minority Veterans of America is just one example of the radical liberal agenda that was on full display in House committee hearings this week.

Several values issues came up in the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing. First, Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) questioned what was included in the expansion of contraception access for veterans in H.R. 4281. The Director of Reproductive Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clarified that this would include abortifacients like the morning after pill. H.R. 3582, which would expand the scope of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans to include LGBT-identifying veterans, was also introduced. Promoting progressive social policies in the VA has become a new tactic in the House as they seek to sneak in social experiments on abortion, marijuana, and LGBT rights into these federal programs.

Some members used the House Foreign Assistance Budget hearing to attack the president’s appointees at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). John Barsa, the Acting Administrator of USAID, who has actively fought against the global expansion of abortion throughout the coronavirus pandemic, was questioned by members for the various pro-life and pro-family appointees at USAID. The questions the members asked were not about the appointee’s experience or credentials for the role. Instead, they raised concerns only because the president’s appointees hold a worldview with which they disagree. These types of attacks are very similar to those leveled at key White House officials, like Russ Vought, as they made their way through the Senate confirmation process. This indirect assault against people who hold a biblical worldview is greatly concerning.

Although there was a fair share of anti-life and anti-family rhetoric on Capitol Hill this week, Christians shouldn’t be discouraged. Proverbs 21:1 reminds us that in God’s hand, “the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him.” Remember, God is sovereign; nothing surprises Him or takes Him off guard. Moreover, there are actions you can take to protect the values of faith, family, and freedom. First, it is important that you pray. Scripture instructs us to pray for those who are in authority, which includes our leaders in government. Second, it is imperative that you vote and get involved in the political process. As God commanded the exiles in Babylon, we, too, should seek the welfare of our city by engaging in the sometimes messy world of politics. This is one of the practical ways we obey Jesus’ command to love our neighbors (Mark 12:31). Thus, when we are tempted to be discouraged by the rhetoric on Capitol Hill, let’s remember the words of Winston Churchill. “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”

Laura Lee Caum is a Communications intern at Family Research Council.

Continue reading

Hope in Nebraska: Nebraska Pushes Towards Banning Dismemberment Abortions

by Blake Elliott

July 27, 2020

Last week, Nebraska’s state senators successfully pulled a bill prohibiting dismemberment abortions (LB814) from the Judiciary Committee, allowing the legislature to debate and vote on the bill in the remaining days before they adjourn. The author of the bill, State Senator Suzanne Geist, believes that the majority of Nebraskans will agree with the bill once they learn its details and understand the procedure it seeks to ban.

A dismemberment abortion extracts a living, unborn baby from a mother’s womb, one body part at a time, through the use of clamps, scissors, and tongs. The pro-abortion crowd tends to call these dilation and extraction abortions because most people are against dismembering babies or human beings in general. According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, only two states currently have dismemberment abortion bans in effect. Because dismemberment abortions are usually performed later-term, a baby’s skull is typically already calcified and must be crushed before extraction. Afterward, the abortionist must examine the baby’s dismembered body parts to ensure that none are left inside the mother. According to FRC’s issue analysis on dismemberment abortions, dismemberment abortions account for around 96 percent of second-trimester abortions in the United States. This equates to over 75,000 babies a year being ripped to pieces. The majority of Americans would most likely agree with Nebraska State Senator Suzanne Geist that this type of abortion should not be allowed.

Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist who performed approximately 1200 abortions from 1980-1985 (about 120 were dismemberment abortions), described the gruesome reality of dismemberment abortions, saying you just “[grab] whatever is there. Maybe you rip off a leg, which is about four-inches long,” then “an arm, the spine.” He described how “the skull is the most difficult part” because “sometimes there’s a little face staring up at you.” Levatino also described the necessity of keeping an inventory of the parts; if the abortionist leaves any baby body parts in the woman, she will likely get an infection and potentially die.

Dr. Levatino’s life and career took a turn when he and his wife tragically lost their five-year-old daughter, who was struck by a car. Levatino began to see abortion’s ethical problems, realizing that he was ending the life of someone’s son or daughter every time he performed one. It was at this point that Levatino stopped performing abortions and became a pro-life advocate.

LB814 would ban dismemberment abortions in Nebraska. It also carries penalties for those that perform dismemberment abortions in the second trimester. Violators could be convicted of a Class IV felony, spend up to two years in prison and pay a $10,000 fine. Unsurprisingly, Geist and other supporters of this bill are facing pushback from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Scout Richters of the ACLU of Nebraska insists that these senators should be focused on people’s health and healthcare instead of this bill. However, by protecting babies from the brutality of dismemberment abortion, that is precisely what this bill does. Despite what the pro-abortion lobby claims, abortion — including the type that rips living babies into pieces — is not healthcare; it is the exact opposite.

LB814 is expected to be voted on Tuesday, July 28th. It is essential that Nebraska passes this bill banning this heinous act and that other states follow suit. Cornhuskers can click here to make their voices heard.

Continue reading

The Lincoln Memorial: A Monument to Unity in a Time of Discord

by Molly Carman

July 27, 2020

The history of the United States is preserved in archives, books, and the collective memory of the American people. It is also preserved in monuments, memorials, and statues made from marble, granite, bronze, or plaster.

Our nation’s capital is home to some of the world’s most recognizable and frequently visited monuments. This blog series will explore the events and people they commemorate, devoting particular attention to the spiritual themes depicted. By shedding light on our nation’s deep religious heritage, this series aims to inspire the next generation to emulate virtues and merits from America’s past that are worth memorializing.

FRC’s blog series on monuments is written by FRC summer interns and edited by David Closson, FRC’s Director of Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview.

The legacy of America’s 16th president lives on in the memorial built in his honor on the west end of the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Abraham Lincoln accomplished great feats against immense odds. His grand memorial recognizes his determination to sustain the Union and abolish slavery in America. Architect Henry Bacon designed the memorial, and sculptor Daniel Chester French carved the statue of Lincoln housed within. Bacon intentionally designed the memorial to symbolize three main themes — strength, union, and peace.

The Lincoln Memorial is 190 feet long, 119 feet wide, and almost 100 feet tall. The monument’s outer structure is comprised of 36 pillars, representing the 36 states of the Union that Lincoln sought to preserve. Above these pillars, each state’s name and respective year of admission into the Union are engraved. Each column is necessary for the structural integrity of the memorial; if any of the columns were removed, the whole structure would collapse. This symbolizes Lincoln’s vision that the United States must be preserved in order for the nation to stand. The motto “E Pluribus Unum” — meaning “out of many, one” — is engraved in the front of the monument.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural Address are engraved on the memorial’s interior walls, each with corresponding murals depicting the meaning behind the speeches. In both murals, there are fasces (bundles of bound rods) without axe heads to demonstrate the theme of unity and the binding together of the nation. Measuring nine feet tall and weighing 175 tons, the statue of Lincoln himself is also symbolic. Lincoln is seated, but bracing himself in his chair, as if ready to rise. In one of his hands, he holds several fasces. Lincoln grips them tightly to symbolize that he will not relinquish the Union. These fasces reflect Ecclesiastes 4:12, which says: “And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him — a threefold cord is not quickly broken.”

The Lincoln Memorial took eight years to build. On May 30, 1922, a crowd of approximately 50,000 people gathered for the memorial’s dedication. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Howard Taft led the ceremony with President Warren G. Harding and Dr. Robert Moton of the Tuskegee Institute.

Many memorable events have taken place at the Lincoln Memorial over the years, but two stand out from the rest. These two events share a common theme of highlighting and decrying racial injustice. The organizers intentionally placed these events in the shadow of the memorial that honors the man who ended the scourge of slavery in America.

First, in 1939, after being denied the opportunity to perform at nearby Constitution Hall because of her race, the great contralto Marian Anderson sang at the Lincoln Memorial. In front of a crowd of over 75,000 people, she boldly and elegantly sang her prepared piece, and people greatly enjoyed her breathtaking voice. This event prefigured the modern Civil Rights movement by protesting discrimination at the memorial of the man who abolished slavery.

The second standout event was the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which took place on August 28, 1963. During this rally, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, speaking poignantly of a future day when his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. This speech has become such an integral part of the memorial’s story that the spot where King stood to give the speech was permanently marked in 2003.

The Lincoln Memorial helps remind us of two important truths. First, the importance of national unity. The Founding Fathers believed that when we are united in our beliefs, faith, and values, the nation will prosper and endure. In the darkest days of the Civil War, this vision of a united country inspired President Lincoln to remain steadfast in his desire to preserve the Union.

Second, by reminding us of the sobering history of slavery in our nation, the memorial prompts us to consider the words of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. Christians believe that every person — born and unborn, white and black, rich and poor, able-bodied and disabled — is made in God’s image and possesses inherent dignity and worth. Unfortunately, our nation has not always lived up to this ideal. But this founding ideal is supported by Scripture and is a goal worth striving for in our churches and nation.

The Lincoln Memorial reminds us of our country’s darkest hour. However, it also inspires courage to continue to contend for freedom as we consider President Lincoln’s final words in his second inaugural address: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Molly Carman is a Policy and Government Affairs intern whose research focuses on developing a biblical worldview on issues related to family and current events.

Continue reading

FRC’s Top 7 Trending Items (Week of July 19)

by Family Research Council

July 24, 2020

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

1. Washington Update: “Left Comes for Religious Hospitals with Surgical Precision”

Six activists on the Supreme Court think they’ve done everyone a favor by ordering America to help a woman live as a man. But what about religious hospitals that refuse to embrace the Left’s radical views? We need justices who will stand up and protect them.

2. Washington Update: “Like a Mob to the Flame”

It looked like something out of a 2015 news report — a picture from ISIS, maybe, torching its way through Mosul. But the charred pews and collapsed roof were not the work of Islamic terrorists, but America’s own.

3. Blog: “Transgenderism is Now Rated G”

The Baby-Sitters Club is a new Netflix series based on the popular children’s books by the same name published in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. Unfortunately, parents who fondly remember the books from their own childhood should think twice before allowing their impressionable children to watch this G-rated show.

4. Blog: “During the Pandemic, the Trump Administration Is Continuing to Protect Religious Freedom”

The Trump Administration recently announced further steps to protect religious freedom during the coronavirus pandemic. No matter the situation our country faces, the Office of Civil Rights at HHS is on duty, protecting the guard rails of civil rights like religious freedom.

5. Washington Watch: Katharine Gorka insists turning America around will require teaching civics and founding principles

Katharine Gorka, Director of Civil Society and the American Dialogue at The Heritage Foundation’s Feulner Institute, joined Sarah Perry on Washington Watch to discuss her op-ed “Standing Up to ‘Wokeness’ and the Intolerance of the Mob.”

6. Washington Watch: Lindsey Burke talks about the explosion of Pandemic Pods, a neighborhood homeschooling solution

Lindsey Burke, Director for the Center for Education Policy and Will Skillman Fellow in Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation, joined Sarah Perry on Washington Watch to share how ‘Pandemic Pods’ are fundamentally reshaping K-12 education and might be an option for parents looking at alternatives to public schools.

7. Washington Watch: Bob Fu describes the living nightmare of Chinese Christians who are brutalized for their faith

Bob Fu, FRC’s Senior Fellow for International Religious Freedom and Founder/President of the China Aid Association, joined Sarah Perry on Washington Watch to discuss a new video emerging of well-known house churches in China coming under attack by paramilitary police, and also on the latest situation in Hong Kong as the Chinese Communists persecute both Christians and dissidents.

For more from FRC, visit our website at frc.org, our blog at frcblog.com, our Facebook page, Twitter 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!

Continue reading

Archives