Recently a federal court in Maryland undermined the independence of religious organizations when it allowed a nurse’s religious harassment claim against a Catholic institution to go forward.  It was the first such decision of its kind. Villa St. Catherine’s is a Catholic nursing center that the Court recognized is exempt from religious discrimination provisions of Title VII – the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination.  Congress wisely included this exemption so that religious organizations can maintain their religious character.  This makes constitutional and practical sense. A Jewish ministry to the poor should not have to hire a Muslim, and vice versa.  And when government entangles itself in the hiring and firing decisions of religious organizations, it violates the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.  A good analysis of this aspect of Church Autonomy can be read here.

Significantly, the Maryland court agreed that St. Catherine’s should be able to maintain a workforce with beliefs compatible with Catholicism. The nurse in this case was not Catholic, but a member of the Church of the Brethren.  She alleged she was fired because of her religious beliefs, and the Court rejected that claim because religious organizations like Villa St. Catherine’s are allowed to fire people because they don’t share the organization’s religious beliefs.

But Nurse Kennedy also brought a claim for religious harassment and this is where the Court’s analysis and common sense part ways. Prior to being fired, Nurse Kennedy was told that her Church of the Brethren manner of dress – long skirts and a head covering – was not compatible with a Catholic institution and made the residents and family members uncomfortable.  When she complained about this reasonable instruction, she was fired, so she brought a retaliation claim (which the Court also allowed to go forward).

The upshot of it is, St. Catherine’s could have simply fired Nurse Kennedy because she was not Catholic. Instead of taking this drastic measure, she was advised to change her dress to comport with the beliefs of the institution and the people it serves.  Amazingly that reasonable effort to save the nurse’s job proved to be St. Catherine’s downfall.  Under this rationale, a Jewish nursing center could not require its employees to refrain from dressing in traditional Islamic garb – even though it would be contrary to Jewish teaching and have a disturbing effect on the individuals being served.

This is non-sensical and makes an end run around Congress’ well thought out efforts to protect religious organizations from liability when they ensure their employees’ religious beliefs comply with their own.  More significantly, it violates the religious freedom of religious organizations by requiring them to tolerate behavior that conflicts with their teaching and traditions.  Hopefully, St. Catherine’s will appeal this dangerous precedent and the Fourth Circuit will nip this new attack on religious freedom in the bud.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

I had the distinct pleasure to recently hear Dr. Ajai Lall from Central India Christian Mission speak.  Dr. Lall started CICM many years ago as a church-planting and evangelistic outreach to India and the surrounding countries.  His mission has been to spread the Gospel of Christ throughout India and, through God’s blessings, CICM has been wildly successful.

Dr. Lall told the story of one of the pastors that CICM had trained who was ministering in a village in India.  The pastor’s name was Emmanuel and Dr. Lall showed a picture of Emmanuel, his wife and two beautiful sons.  Emmanuel boldly shared his faith in a climate of radical Hinduism.  Some time after he had been there, a group of radical Hindus kidnapped Emmanuel and his wife.  They presented him with an option – sign a document renouncing Christ and agree to leave the area and we will let you go.  Emmanuel and his wife courageously refused and, for their refusal, both were tortured repeatedly and beaten.  Finally, the radicals tied Emmanuel to a tree and told him that if he did not sign the paper, they would rape his wife in front of him.  Emmanuel and his wife once again refused to deny Christ.  As the radicals were making good on their threats, some passersby heard Emmanuel’s screams and brought help.  Emmanuel and his wife were rescued.

Courageously, Emmanuel and his wife refused to leave the village and continued to proclaim Christ.  Several times in their ministry in the village, they ran into the people who tortured them and each time they did, they told these people, “God bless you.”  Finally, some of the men who tortured them had enough and asked, “Why do you always ask God to bless us after what we did to you?”  Emmanuel and his wife invited the men into their home for tea and shared Christ’s love with them.  Two of the men have since become Christians.

Emmanuel’s amazing story reminded me of how many times I take freedom of religion in America for granted.  I drive to church every week, I worship God freely, and I hear from God’s word – all without any threat or thought that someone will come in and attempt to kill me or my family or destroy my church.  And I have done that for my entire life.  I have never had to worry that, in America, I will be killed or tortured for what I believe.

Now don’t get me wrong – the church in America has its share of censorship and I have devoted my life to fighting the threats against the church in America. But let’s take just a moment to think of Emmanuel’s story and be grateful for the religious freedom we enjoy in this country.  We still have the right and the ability to worship and share our faith freely.  And let’s also give thanks for those brave Americans who gave their lives to defend our ability to worship and share our faith freely.

Let Emmanuel’s story stand not just as an amazing page in church history, but let it stand as a witness to all Americans not to take religious freedom for granted.  Let us exercise the religious freedom we do have and thank God that we live in a country where we don’t have to fear death or physical harm for holding and sharing our faith.  God has blessed America with an amazing level of freedom and we must use that freedom to share our faith with an increasingly secular culture that has turned its back on God.  Our society needs to hear the life-changing message of the Gospel from the Church in America.  That’s why ADF started the Church Project and why we have devoted ourselves to keeping the doors open for the spread of the Gospel.  Freedom was not free for the men and women who died in the fight for freedom and it is a luxury that many in the world do not have.

And let us pray for our brothers and sisters across the world who do not enjoy the same religious freedom.  They, like Emmanuel and his wife, face dangers every day simply for believing in Christ and sharing His life-changing message with those around them.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Rocky Mountain Christian Church just won a huge battle that really was about just how beneficial churches are to the community.  Located in a rural area of Boulder County, Colorado, the church found itself at odds with the local zoning board because it needed to expand its sanctuary and school to accommodate an additional 150 worshipers and 120 students.  The County dug its heals in, saying it wasn’t going to have any “mega-churches” in its neck of the woods.  It changed its rules to make it more difficult for churches – and this church in particular – to locate and grow there.  Thankfully, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and a jury in the trial court below both saw the anti-religious bigotry at work and ruled against the county.  You can read this helpful opinion obtained by the Becket Fund on behalf of the church here.

But this case is merely one more example of how government officials increasingly see churches as more of a hinderance than a help to the local community.  That hasn’t always been so.  The Supreme Court observed in the 1970 Walz case that religious organizations are widely recognized as fostering “moral or mental improvement” in communities.  Yet many governments now treat them no better than sexually oriented businesses – and sometimes worse.

The fact is, studies have shown that churches are a tremendous benefit to the communities they serve.  For instance, a Baylor University study found that kids that attend church in low income neighborhoods have a better chance of staying in school and succeeding academically.  Another study concludes that “Churches and religious groups offer a vast array of services to their local communities …that sometimes are not being provided elsewhere, such as [a]fter-school programs, refugee resettlement, homeless shelters, [and] food banks….”

Local governments cut off a vital part of their communities when they discourage churches from locating and growing in their neighborhoods.  There is no way government can provide all the beneficial services religious organizations do – especially in this day and age when government services are being cut.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Recently, the Roman Catholic Church has come under fire after two of its schools, one in Massachusetts and one in Colorado, declined to enroll students who have same-sex parents. Not surprisingly, these decisions created a firestorm of public criticism and outrage, raising questions about whether churches should have the right to make these types of enrollment decisions.

A similar situation arose in California not too long ago. A Lutheran high school in California was the target of a lawsuit by two former students who were expelled for violating the school’s Christian Conduct policy. The policy prohibited students from engaging in immoral or scandalous conduct, including homosexual behavior, which these two students engaged in. The lawsuit alleged that the school violated California law by discriminating against the students based on their sexual orientation.

Most of the time, non-discrimination laws serve worthy goals that help strengthen our religious freedom. But they can be misused and overextended, especially when religious organizations are involved. When that happens, these laws are put on a collision course with religious freedom. And far too often, it’s religious freedom that is sacrificed for the sake of political correctness.

These situations are perfect examples. One of the most basic and fundamental principles of the First Amendment is that churches should remain autonomous and not have the government interfering with their internal affairs. But churches lose that freedom when the government imposes non-discrimination laws that intrude into religious matters, like operating a private school.

After all, the mission of a church-run school is not just to provide a good education, but to inculcate students with a particular set of values and beliefs. So it’s essential that we give churches wide latitude in deciding how to implement their educational system, including its enrollment criteria, to best carry out that mission.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, in defending the Colorado school’s enrollment policy, put it this way: “The main purpose of Catholic schools is religious; in other words, to form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values. … Our schools are meant to be ‘partners in faith’ with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.”

By God’s grace, the Lutheran school in California ultimately prevailed in its lawsuit. ADF and the Christian Legal Society filed briefs in that case supporting the school on behalf of over 830 private religious schools throughout California who would have all been affected by a bad ruling in the case. And we will continue to fight to ensure that churches keep the right to set their policies based on religious conviction, not government mandate.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

If you haven’t heard the story of preacher Dale McAlpine, then you will want to take notice.  Mr. McAlpine is a British man who preaches on the streets of his hometown in Cumbria.  He was recently arrested by a police officer who told him that it was against the law to preach that homosexual behavior was sinful.

Dale was preaching on April 20 when he was approached by a police officer who warned him not to preach that homosexual behavior was a sin because to do so would be against the law.  Later in the conversation, the police officer identified himself as a person who engages in homosexual behavior and then arrested Mr. McAlpine for creating “harassment, alarm or distress” contrary to Section 5 of the public order act.  I couldn’t help but think of Peter and the Apostles in Acts 5 when I read that Mr. McAlpine was charged and released on bail on the condition that he not preach in public.

As the Christian Institute points out, speech saying that homosexual behavior is sinful is not in violation of the Public Order Act. But something is indeed wrong when a law like the Public Order Act in Britain, which was intended to combat rowdy sports fans, leads to the arrest of someone peacefully sharing their faith.  Indeed, as Kevin Theriot points out, there is an increasing attack on the speech of Christians sharing their faith, not just in places like Britain, but also here in the United States.

That attack comes from many fronts, but primarily is from those espousing the homosexual agenda, which ADF’s President Alan Sears rightly calls “the principal threat to religious freedom today.”  Alan states in his book The Homosexual Agenda that “The bottom line is that the right of people of faith to hold sincere beliefs. . . is under attack unless they are willing to muzzle any expression of their faith.”  And if there are still any doubters about whether what Alan says is true, then just listen to the homosexual activists who have clearly communicated what their end-game strategy is.  Alan quotes in his book homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen who stated, “[In regards to those] who feel compelled to adhere rigidly to an authoritarian belief structure (i.e. an orthodox religion), that condemns homosexuality. . . our primary objective regarding die-hard homohaters of this sort is to cow and silence them.”

Dale McAlpine’s recent run-in with the British constabulary should disturb all of us. While it may not be against the law yet to speak Biblical Truth about issues in our society like homosexual behavior, we must recognize that Truth is under attack.  And for those who tell us that we cannot speak the Truth, we must be prepared to declare, as Peter did so forcefully before the Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather than men!”

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch