Watch & Listen >> http://alln.cc/XNcYfS
Protect and promote the rights of our churches.

“Speaking via video link to the Oslo Conference on Human Rights on April 15, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that he is launching an international campaign to elevate the demands of sexually confused individuals over the rights of other individuals.”

Benjamin Bull’s column looks at the U.N. Secretary-General’s pledge to put the fight for special rights for some groups—sexually identified—over religious concerns. Read the entire post here.

You may be tempted to think if marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, then the whole issue may just go away and the two sides can come to some sort of grudging peace.  Everyone can get on with their lives, right?  Well, not so fast. One of the things that is often overlooked in the debate over marriage is the effect redefining marriage will have on religious freedom.

In short, redefining marriage to include same-sex couples poses a significant threat to religious freedom.  Examples abound to illustrate this fact. 

In New Mexico, a Christian photographer was fined several thousand dollars after she politely declined to use her artistic talents to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony”.

Attempts have been made in Vermont, Illinois, and New Jersey, just to name a few states, to force Christian businesses to open their properties for same-sex wedding ceremonies, in opposition to their sincere religious beliefs.

A city in Kansas attempted to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance that would have forced churches to open their facilities for same-sex weddings regardless of their religious beliefs to the contrary.

A Christian-owned business in Kentucky was accused of unlawful discrimination when it abided by its faith and declined to print t-shirts for a local “pride festival” that celebrates homosexual behavior and same-sex relationships.

These examples illustrate the effect that redefining marriage has on religious freedom.  But the “marriage” issue is more than just about marriage.  The push for same-sex “marriage” is really a broader push to normalize homosexual behavior in society, which also has a negative effect on religious freedom.

The latest example of this is the pressure on the Boy Scouts of America organization to change its membership policy to include individuals who advocate or engage in homosexual behavior.  This may not seem like a true threat to religious freedom, but over 70 percent of chartering organizations for Boy Scout troops are religious organizations.  These churches will face a difficult choice if the Boy Scouts’ leadership changes its policy.  Do the churches abide by their religious beliefs and cease being a chartering organization? 

These kinds of choices are faced by Christians across America with increasing frequency.  We must not forget the simple fact that religious freedom is the casualty of a society that embraces same-sex “marriage” and the normalization of homosexual behavior.

But we are not powerless.  The voice of the church is needed now more than ever.  In this moment, there are at least two things you and your church can do:

            1.  Sign up to participate in Pulpit Freedom Sunday on June 9, 2013.  On that day, pastors across America will stand together and preach sermons about what Scripture says regarding God’s design for marriage and sexual behavior.  Pastors have traditionally led the way in speaking to our culture at times when we have been confronted with momentous questions.  It was pastors who spoke out against slavery, child labor, and for civil rights and women’s suffrage.  Pastors have a lot to say about marriage – the first institution that God created.  And society needs to hear what the church has to say.

            2.         Sign the petition to encourage the Boy Scouts of America to stand strong and resist pressure to change its membership policy.  If your church is a chartering organization for a Boy Scout troop, download our sample policy you can adopt to prepare your church in the event the Boy Scouts do change membership requirements.

Now is not the time for America’s churches to be silent.  Because together we can speak up to protect religious freedom.

Rarely can the essence of a lawsuit be captured through pictures. But in Alliance Defending Freedom’s case involving a tiny Church’s First Amendment challenge to the Town of Gilbert’s discriminatory treatment of signs advertising its religious services, a picture truly speaks a thousand words.  Consider these two pictures:

Town officials view the sign on the left, which advertises our client’s Church services, as a constitutional crisis, and thus impose incredibly stringent limitations on the placement of such signs.  Yet these same officials see no problem with the proliferation of political signs, like those depicted in the picture on the right.  In fact, we presented the court with dozens of pictures showing how the Town permits the placement of numerous political signs at intersections throughout Gilbert.

The constitutional problem with the Town’s sign code is that it treats temporary signs VASTLY differently based on what they say.  In First Amendment parlance, this is called “content-based discrimination,” and it is a major constitutional no-no.

The Town’s sign code violates this core First Amendment principle in many ways.  One of them is by imposing highly restrictive requirements (related to size, duration, etc.) on the Church’s signs that it does not impose on similar temporary signs, like political and ideological signs.  For example, the Church’s signs can only be 6 square feet, while ideological signs can be up to 20 square feet (over 300% larger) and political signs up to 32 square feet (almost 600% larger)!  Also, the Church’s signs can be placed just 12 hours before their services begin and must be taken done 1 hour after they end.  In stark contrast, political signs may be placed 60 days before a primary election and may stay up 15 days after the general election and ideological signs may stay up indefinitely!  (A diagram depicting the code’s differential treatment of signs based on content can be viewed here.)  The Town’s code favors signs bearing political and ideological messages over those bearing religious messages, and that violates the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled 2-1 against the Church.  So we filed a petition asking the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case.  Please join us in praying for a favorable outcome and for this tiny Church’s courageous stand to be vindicated.

If you’ve faced similar disparity in your community when attempting to promote your church or ministry, contact Alliance Defending Freedom through our legal help form online.

Religious liberty received an early Christmas present a few weeks back when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. City of Warren.  The opinion gives a new take on what is now a familiar legal story.  The City of Warren, Michigan put up a holiday display in its civic center that included a smorgasbord of nonreligious items, including ribbons, ornaments, reindeer, wreaths, elves, gift boxes, etc., and one religious one—a nativity scene.  True to form, the Grinch more commonly known as the Freedom from Religion Foundation (“FFRF”) turned up to complain that the nativity scene violated the Establishment Clause.  But the city mayor stuck to his guns and refused to remove it.  So FFRF tried a different tack; it submitted a large sandwich-board sign for inclusion in the display that, among other festive gems, proclaimed that:

There are no gods,
no devils, no angels,
No heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world,
Religion is but
Myth and superstition
That hardens hearts
And enslaves minds.

Clearly recognizing FFRF’s sign for what it was, a venomous attack on religion designed to scuttle the holiday display altogether, the city mayor refused to include it.  FFRF then filed a lawsuit.  The district court ultimately rejected FFRF’s arguments and so did the Sixth Circuit.

In an excellent opinion written by Judge Sutton, the Sixth Circuit explained that a “nativity scene, when accompanied by [a] collection of secular and seasonal symbols, does not amount to an establishment of religion or for that matter an impermissible endorsement of it.”    Indeed, this argument seems rather silly in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has proclaimed that “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme Being” and Congress has enacted “a law devoted to spiritual matters … called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, all without violating the Establishment Clause.”

The clear lesson of this story is that “when government speaks for itself,” “strict neutrality” is not required.  Otherwise, the postal service couldn’t add a religious Christmas stamp without designing a nonreligious counterpart, “Veterans’ Day would lead to Pacifism Day, the Fourth of July to Non-Patriots Day, and so on.”  That is not the law.  Government is free to keep items, like FFRF’s sign, out of its holiday display and may “choose to add a nativity scene (so long as it did not violate the Establishment Clause)” or “add an angel,” while “keep[ing] out a devil.”  “[A]ccountability” for these choices is “through the democratic process.”

So if your town sponsors a holiday display next December, advocate for a nativity scene to be included.  Each one is an important reminder that Jesus is the reason we celebrate Christmas, not Rudolph however charming his bright nose.  And as an added benefit, nativity scenes in public displays visibly deny the strict “separation of church and state,” which is a mirage built of groups like FFRF’s wishful thinking, not the First Amendment’s text.

Recently the City Council of Phoenix, AZ, passed the “Bathroom Bill,” which, among other things, will allow men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker rooms. The Mayor and five Council members who voted in favor of this change said it was necessary to protect the miniscule segment of men who are confused about their sexuality and think that they are women. But in passing the Bathroom Bill, the Mayor and City Council abdicated its duty to protect Phoenix’s children and women. Instead, it provided voyeurs and other sexual predators easy access to the places where children and women are most vulnerable. The City Council thus violated its public trust and placed children, adolescents, and women who use a public restroom in Phoenix at risk.

Supporters of the Bathroom Bill are saying that no man who believes he is a woman will bother girls or women while using the restroom. Their claim misses the point. Most girls and women will be unnerved by seeing any man in their restroom, whether he intends them harm or not. The Bathroom Bill allows any man – including voyeurs and other sexual predators –  to enter women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas. It is not limited to the small percentage of men who think they are women. Sadly, there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. In fact, merely asking someone if they are aware it is the “wrong” bathroom can potentially invoke punishment and leave the person asking the question with a criminal record. That’s right, now it’s a criminal violation to discriminate against men who think they should use the women’s restroom.

While the City Council exempted churches and religious organizations from having to open their women’s restrooms to men, churches need to be concerned.  We all need to be concerned.  Letting men into public bathrooms used by young girls and women is an invasion of privacy and a threat to the safety of all citizens. Instead of protecting women and children, the city’s elected officials adopted a bill that will compromise their safety. It is appalling that these elected officials have decided to put women and young girls in danger.

One shining ray of encouragement coming from this otherwise bleak situation concerns how the leaders of local Hispanic churches took a bold stand for the children, women, and families in Phoenix. They overwhelmingly opposed the Bathroom Bill and courageously explained its danger, along with what the Bible says about human sexuality, to the City Council. They implored the Council to make decisions in accordance with God’s Word and protect the children, women and families of Phoenix.  These pastors and other leaders served as a stirring example of what it means to shepherd and protect God’s church and boldly proclaim His truth.

May all pastors and church leaders do likewise.

As Pope Benedict XVI retires from public life, it is time to pay tribute to his contributions as one of the greatest champions of religious freedom in our age.  Pope Benedict XVI, throughout his time in office, proclaimed loudly what few in our time have dared to speak:  “Christians are the religious group which suffers most from persecution on account of its faith.”  And he refused to accept the status quo, characterizing it as “unacceptable,” “an insult to God and to human dignity; furthermore, it is a threat to security and peace, and an obstacle to the achievement of authentic and integral human development.”  Few religious leaders have been so bold.  But Pope Benedict XVI spoke out in the face of “the deliberate promotion of religious indifference or practical atheism on the part of many countries.”  He clearly proclaimed that efforts to “curtail the proclamation of [religious] truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, … represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God.”

For Pope Benedict XVI harbored no doubts that “the most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion” was under attack.  He spoke out against efforts to deny religious persons “the right of conscientious objection” and the “worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.”  And he explained that the “Church has a critical role to play in countering cultural currents which, on the basis of an extreme individualism, seek to promote notions of freedom detached from moral truth.”  Pope Benedict XVI clearly saw religious freedom as “an essential good” and he declared eloquently that “each person must be able freely to exercise the right to profess and manifest, individually or in community, his or her own religion or faith, in public and in private, in teaching, in practice, in publications, in worship and in ritual observances.”

To respect this basic “[h]uman right[],” Pope Benedict XVI declared that civil authorities must “give[] space to viewpoints inspired by a religious vision in all its dimensions, including ritual, worship, education, dissemination of information and the freedom to profess and choose religion.”  Because, as he explained, “[it] is inconceivable … that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves—their faith—in order to be active citizens.  It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights.”  For “[t]he right to religious freedom is rooted in the very dignity of the human person, whose transcendent nature must not be ignored or overlooked.”  Thus, as Pope Benedict XVI made clear, when “religious freedom is acknowledged, the dignity of the human person is respected at its root.”  “[T]he moral legitimacy of every social and legal norm” therefore depends upon respect for “the right to life and the right to religious freedom.”

Expressions of sincere thanks and appreciation for Pope Benedict XVI’s leadership in the religious freedom arena are both necessary and appropriate.  But perhaps the best tribute to Pope Benedict XVI’s public ministry is to heed his moving words describing religious freedom as “an essential element of a constitutional state,” a right that “cannot be denied without at the same time encroaching on all fundamental rights and freedoms, since it is their synthesis and keystone.  It is the litmus test for the respect of all the other human rights.”  Alliance Defending Freedom works every day to uphold religious freedom in all of its forms.  And we invite you to join us in this effort, so valiantly championed by Pope Benedict XVI.

Watch & Listen >> http://alln.cc/XNcYfS
Protect and promote the rights of our churches.

But one thing is certain; the battle over the abortion pill mandate is the premier religious liberty battle of our day.  When the Obama Administration enacted the mandate, it essentially declared war on the free exercise of religion.  It elevated sexual liberty over religious liberty.  And it crystallized the issue into stark terms.  Simply put, if the Obama Administration can force you to violate your religious freedom, then it can force anyone to do anything.

Pastors should be well-informed about this battle considering its impact on the religious freedom of churches, religious organizations, and religious business owners.  Alliance Defending Freedom is at the forefront of the litigation over the constitutionality of the abortion pill mandate and, based on our experience, here is what you need to know at this stage of the battle:

We Are Winning!

The vast majority of cases filed on behalf of for-profit businesses have resulted in injunctions against the abortion pill mandate.  For an up-to-date scorecard of the cases in litigation, click here.  It is important for you as a pastor to know this battle is winnable.  And not only is it winnable, Alliance Defending Freedom and our allies are in fact winning.

But the fact that we are winning should not breed complacency.  The Obama Administration has appealed in every case where we have obtained an injunction.  The battleground has shifted now from the federal district courts to the federal appellate courts.  There is reason for optimism, but we must temper our optimism with the realization that the battle is far from over.  Winning a skirmish does not equate to winning the war.

It is likely that  one or more of these cases will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.  There are simply too many of them percolating in the lower courts for the Supreme Court to ignore.

The “New Rule” is still unconstitutional

Last year, after several groups filed lawsuits against the abortion pill mandate, the Obama Administration announced a “compromise.”  It would enact a one-year “safe harbor” for nonprofit religious organizations and then begin the process of adopting a new rule that might exempt more religious organizations from the mandate.

The “safe harbor” did not apply to regular for-profit businesses where the owners seek to run their businesses according to their religious faith.  That’s why several for-profit businesses had no choice but to file lawsuits and seek injunctions.

After a year of thinking about it, the Obama Administration announced a proposed new rule for who can be exempt from the abortion pill mandate.  Here is how the new rule breaks down:

Churches:  Under the proposed new rule, churches remain exempt from the mandate as do conventions or associations of churches, integrated auxiliaries of churches, and religious orders.  An “integrated auxiliary of a church” is an organization affiliated with and predominately supported by a church.  An example of an integrated auxiliary of a church is a homeless shelter controlled and funded by a church.

Religious Organizations:  The proposed rule does not completely exempt religious nonprofit organizations.  It simply shifts the burden of providing contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs to the insurer selected by the religious nonprofit.  This is no compromise at all.  The Obama Administration claims the insurer will provide the coverage for free and there should be no conflict with the religious organization’s faith.  But this simply ignores reality.  The insurers will pass on that cost to the organizations paying for the insurance.  They won’t just provide coverage for these drugs out of the goodness of their hearts.  In the end, the religious organization will still be on the hook to pay for these abortion-inducing drugs in some way.  So the proposed rule does not protect religious freedom for religious nonprofit organizations.

For-Profit Businesses:  The proposed rule offers no exemption at all for any for-profit business.  This even includes businesses like Tyndale House Bible Publishers, which the Obama Administration strenuously argues is not religious enough to qualify for an exemption from the abortion pill mandate.  Business owners who seek to run their businesses in accordance with their religious faith have no exemption and no refuge from the mandate.

As a pastor, you need to be aware that the effect of the abortion pill mandate will fall most heavily on business owners in your church who employ more than 50 people.  They will have no choice but to either comply with the mandate or face crippling fines that may drive them from the marketplace.  Your church can, and should, come around these brave business owners and support them in the battle to preserve their religious freedom.

We must continue to fight this battle – and win!  Please stay informed about what is happening with the battle against the Obama Administration’s abortion pill mandate.  Visit our Obamacare resource page for up-to-date information to inform your congregation about what is happening.  Often the media does not report the facts correctly about the cases we are fighting.

And please pray for victory.  Pray for the courageous lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom and our allies who are fighting in court to preserve religious freedom – our first freedom.  And pray for the judges who will hear these cases that the Lord will direct their hearts and minds to preserve the right of individuals, organizations, and businesses to live their faith in the public square.

This battle is far from over.  But together, as our name says, we can be an Alliance Defending Freedom.  We’ll keep you updated as this important issue advances.