Subscribe: FRC Blog
http://feeds.feedburner.com/frcblog
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
abortion  adoption  case  family  free  god  law  ldquo  love  mdash  ndash  political  rdquo  rights  sex  social  speech 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: FRC Blog

www.frcblog.com - Latest entries



The latest entries for the site www.frcblog.com



Last Build Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 07:21:40 -0600

Copyright: Zinnia
 



10th Circuit Lets Police Officers Off the Hook After Telling Woman She Could Not Pray in Her Own Home

Wed, 22 Nov 2017 07:21:40 -0600

(image)

First Liberty, a non-profit law firm, recently filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on behalf of their client, Mary Anne Sause, after the 10th Circuit ruled that the police officers who told her she could not pray did not clearly violate her rights. As recounted by the court, and alleged in her complaint, the police officers entered Sause’s house to investigate a noise complaint. When one officer left to search the house, an action he did not provide a valid reason for, Sause became frightened and asked the officer with her if she could pray. The officer said she could and Sause knelt on her prayer rug and began to pray. Once the other officer returned to the room he allegedly ordered Sause to get up and stop praying as he and the other officer began to mock Sause for praying and tell her that she should leave the state since no one liked her. As recounted, the behavior of these officers is reprehensible in multiple ways. Yet it is also troubling that the 10th Circuit let the officers off the hook for their actions in this case.

In its opinion, the court held that even assuming the police officers violated Sause’s First Amendment rights when they told her to stop praying, the officers had qualified immunity and therefore could not be held responsible.

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects public officials, such as police officers, from liability if their actions did not violate a clearly established law or constitutional right. Because the specific circumstances of this case had never been presented to the 10th Circuit before, that court claimed the officers did not violate a clearly established law and were protected by qualified immunity.

Yet the right to exercise your religion, in this case the right to pray, is clearly established—in the Constitution. While it is difficult to expect police officers to perfectly understand the legal dynamics of every possible situation they might encounter with a civilian, and thus qualified immunity may be necessary in some contexts to allow police officers to do their jobs effectively, the violation in this case is nevertheless obvious and the officers responsible should not be allowed to hide behind qualified immunity.

It is essential that officers understand basic rights—including our First Amendment rights—named in the Constitution, which every student learns in public school. To claim that a police officer shouldn’t be expected to know that an American citizen has the right to pray in a context like that alleged in this case is a dangerous turn.

The Supreme Court should take up this case and declare to the nation that religious freedom is a vital constitutional right which should be respected by all public officials. No individual in a country which claims to protect the religious liberty of its citizens should ever be told that they cannot pray.

(image)


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/sUbIpWloKh4/Prayer_woman_1200x630.jpg




Why It Is Unnecessary to Force Jack Phillips to Bake a Wedding Cake

Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:21:48 -0600

There are actually a number of answers to this question, but one of them is quite simple: because there are so many others nearby who are happy to do so.

One amicus brief filed in support of Jack Phillips by numerous law and economics scholars, including the esteemed Richard Epstein, makes this point quite nicely.

That brief points out that according to a search on Gayweddings.com, there are 67 other bakeries in the Denver area alone that are willing to create a same-sex wedding cake, including one that is only 1/10 of a mile from Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop. Forty-two of these bakeries are shown below; notice where they are compared to Jack’s shop, marked by the orange circle:

(image)

Given all these shops that are happy to create a wedding cake for a prospective same-sex couple, is it really necessary to force Jack Phillips to be the one to do so?

While the prospective customers may be offended at Jack’s beliefs, part of living in a free country is that we interact with people who believe differently than us.

Yet they can easily travel nearby and obtain the cake from someone else—someone happy to help create it.

Meanwhile, forcing Jack Phillips to create the cake comes with the heavy cost of forcing him to violate his conscience or stop designing wedding cakes (and potentially go out of business).

Regardless of our personal views on the issue, that is not a vision of American “freedom” that any of us should want to be a part of.

 

(image)


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/A67WR2mmzP4/Denver_map.png




Social Conservative Review - November 15, 2017

Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:30:49 -0600

Dear Friends, In our current cultural age of distraction and brokenness, it’s important to remember a fact of life that is often ignored: actions have consequences. This essential principle becomes startlingly obvious in light of FRC’s newest publication, “The Link Between Pornography, Sex Trafficking, and Abortion.” As this paper establishes, a single click of internet pornography by the public indicates to the pornography producer that their material is in demand, which will then fuel the continued production of porn, which then fuels the continued exploitation of women who are often pressured into being filmed doing sex acts, which then fuels the lustful desires of the pornography consumer to seek paid sex from women who are often being sex trafficked themselves, which often leads to them having forced abortions. This is just one example of the horrific chain of consequences that can happen as a result of one poor choice. Happily, however, good deeds also have consequences, or more fittingly, fruits. When we give of ourselves generously, the person who receives this gift (or even someone who just observes the good deed) will often feel grateful and humbled, and even feel inspired to act generously themselves in response. This reflects the nature of God—He exists in the form of gift. In other words, everything that we have—our lives, our breath, our material possessions—are a gift from Him. Therefore, we are all called to give ourselves away, just as God has done for us. May we always remember this principle and live by it, that selfish actions have dire consequences, but selfless deeds bear plentiful fruit. Thank you for your prayers and for your continued support of FRC and the family. Sincerely, Dan Hart Managing Editor for Publications Family Research Council   FRC Articles The Link Between Pornography, Sex Trafficking, and Abortion – Arina Grossu The First Amendment Protects a Dissenting Cake Baker, Not State Coercion – Travis Weber School Worker Was Told She Could Be Fired If She Offered to Pray for Someone Again – Tony Perkins Sen. Cassidy Was Right: Most Planned Parenthood Businesses Are in Urban Areas – Arina Grossu Atheists, Courts Mark Veterans Day While Demanding Demolition Of Veterans Memorials – Travis Weber ObamaCare 2018: Unaffordable, fewer options, still covers abortion – Arina Grossu What This Disabled Navy Veteran Told NFL Team When They Tried to Honor Him – Tony Perkins 66% Don't Believe Bakery Should Be Punished for Not Baking Cake for Same-Sex Wedding – Tony Perkins Conservative Group Claims YouTube Is Censoring Its Videos – Tony Perkins Judge Usurps Power, Ignores Real Issues in Transgender Military Injunction – Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin Religious Freedom for Bakers is Common Ground for Most Americans – Natalie Pugh From Zero to Zelie: Our Adoption Journey and What We’ve Learned – Daniel and Bethany Meola Concern for “Rights” Is Nothing New for Social Conservatives – Peter Sprigg Following God’s Call to Adopt in Ethiopia – Maggie Banga Did the ACLU Hide the Ball and Rush an Abortion? – Travis Weber Scalise Shooting Declared to be an Act of Terrorism Under Virginia Law, So Why is the FBI Confused? – Chris Gacek   Religious Liberty Religious Liberty in the Public Square Poll: 71% of Americans Say Political Correctness Has Silenced Discussions Society Needs to Have, 58% Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share – CATO Institute Most Americans Believe Christian Bakers Should Not Be Forced to Make Cakes for Gay Weddings – Stoyan Zaimov, The Christian Post Atheist Group Demands School District End Evangelical Group's Mentor Program – Michael Gryboski, The Christian Post Minnesota officials attempt to control the message of Christian filmmakers – Joe Carter, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission "Free to Believe" Georgia School District Bans Coac[...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/z7O0LnkIK8w/SCR_1200x630.jpg




Religious Freedom for Bakers is Common Ground for Most Americans

Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:30:48 -0600

The Cato Institute published their Free Speech and Tolerance Survey for 2017 at the end of October. In their research, they asked over 2,000 United States citizens about their opinions on free speech. Their study revealed that 50% of Americans think businesses with religious objections should still be required to serve those who identify as gay and lesbian as a general rule (which the wedding vendors who have been sued are happy to do), but 68% believe a baker should not be required to bake a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. These results show that, at least on this issue, Americans can identify and support a genuine desire to live according to one’s religious beliefs. The survey also revealed that most Americans feel that political correctness is preventing important discussions (71%) and feel afraid to voice their opinions (58%). Additionally, while an overwhelming majority (79%) of Americans find hate speech “morally unacceptable,” only 40% believe the government should prevent public expressions of hate speech. If most Americans believe in the value of free speech, even to the point of allowing hate speech, why is there so much outrage over speech in our society? The problem lies in the conflicting ideas of what Americans find offensive. In the survey, people’s answers followed closely to party values. Despite their support for free speech as an idea, most strong liberals (51%) think it’s acceptable to punch Nazis; and most conservatives (53%) support revoking citizenship status of individuals who burn the American flag. While both sides of the political spectrum would like to punish specific speech that they find offensive, they need to recognize that taking away free speech would hurt each other equally. There is no clear consensus on what classifies as “hateful” or “offensive” speech among Americans. A majority of liberals (59%) think saying people who identify as transgender have a mental disorder is hate speech, however the majority of conservatives disagree. While 39% of conservatives think saying the police are “racist” is hate speech, only 17% of liberals agree. Given the highly partisan viewpoint that individuals are placing on speech, any laws to censor speech would be completely dependent on which political party was currently holding a majority on Capitol Hill. This would destroy the basic principle of free speech. The right to speak freely is a foundational right of our nation. It allows citizens to voice their displeasure with our current government, society, or situation, and through dialogue, devise a plan for improvement. Without this right, citizens would lose the ability to hold their government accountable or merely express their opinions, as the party in power could suppress the spread of any ideas they disliked. This could have devastating effects on Americans’ right to assemble, right to protest, freedom of the press, and religious freedom. Has society already destroyed the acceptance of free speech? A majority of Americans are afraid to publicly voice their opinions. It’s not hard to imagine why when 59% of Democrats believe employers should punish their employees for offensive Facebook posts. However, freedom of speech is still a constitutional right for every American citizen. While an argument for censorship can sound convincing in today’s divisive climate, it is important to remember the equality that freedom of speech gives to each citizen. Ultimately, we need to remember the origin of the Bill of Rights that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to achieve. Being occasionally offended is a small price to pay to ensure freedom of speech for all citizens, regardless of their political party. [...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/Soq6ZtkSVGk/Jack_Phillips_1200x630.jpg




From Zero to Zelie: Our Adoption Journey and What We've Learned

Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:18:50 -0600

November is National Adoption Month. To recognize this important issue, we are publishing personal adoption testimonies this month. Adoption is very near and dear to our hearts. After six years of marriage, and many prayers for a child, earlier this year we welcomed our daughter Zelie-Louise Layla Rose into our family through adoption. This experience has been a profound journey of faith for us—a pilgrimage—and God has taught us so much through it, and through the people we’ve encountered along the way. Our adoption story, in a nutshell: we were married in 2011, experienced the heartache of infertility, and in 2015 discerned a call to adopt. Adoption is a calling; not every couple without children is called to pursue it, but all couples should discern it. We then completed our home study (the state’s approval process for pre-adoptive parents) for domestic, infant adoption and after a year and a half of actively waiting, we were chosen by our daughter’s birthparents in February 2017. Zelie was born on April 6, 2017, and we were blessed to be with her from her very first moments after birth. She is a beautiful, energetic, delightfully happy baby who brings immeasurable joy into our family! Being so personally close to adoption, and being such a new adoptive family, there is both so much to say and at the same time no way to adequately capture all that adoption means to us. Nonetheless, here are a few things we have learned about adoption so far. Adoption is… …an act of heroism. And by that we are not talking first about adoptive parents like ourselves, but of birthparents. Selfless love means putting another’s needs ahead of your own desires, and that is exactly what birthparents do. It’s crucial to say that birthparents don’t “give up” a child for adoption, but rather “place” a child or “make an adoption plan.” The latter speak to the proactive love and generosity shown by birthparents in choosing a family for their child, despite the pain and heartache that it can mean for them. We will always teach Zelie that her birthparents are her heroes for their loving decision to place her in our family. …a response to a loss. This truth is necessary to acknowledge, that adoption happens because there is some crisis or difficulty so grave that a child cannot be raised by his or her birthparents; this is undeniably a tragedy. In a perfect world, we’d have no need for adoption (nor would infertility exist), but in this actual world, adoption is a loving response to a difficult situation, and a powerful example of bringing hope and beauty out of very hard circumstances. It’s important for all involved in adoption to be mindful of the losses involved, especially as an adopted child grows and processes his or her feelings about it. Here, open adoption (some level of ongoing contact between the adoptive and birth families) can help answer a child’s questions, provide connection with his or her heritage, and offer an opportunity for the child to stay connected to the birthparents. …a powerful act of hospitality. Borrowing from this beautiful piece by adoptive father Timothy O’Malley, adoption expresses great hospitality and welcome. There is a reason why Scripture speaks so often of us as God’s adopted children! “When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son . . . so that we might receive adoption” (Galatians 4: 4-5). Zelie will always have her precious heritage from her birth family, including genetic connections, her looks, and so forth, and we will help her cherish that part of her identity. But when we adopted her, she became fully and truly a member of our family as well. She is forever our daughter. (Side note: this is why adoptive parents bristle when asked, “Do you have any of ‘your own’ children?”) As Timothy O’Malley expl[...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/Vp26uJYHesw/Meola_1200x630.jpg




Concern for "Rights" Is Nothing New for Social Conservatives

Wed, 08 Nov 2017 10:51:33 -0600

The Religion News Service (RNS) recently ran an interview with the author of a new book who claims, in the words of the RNS summary, “that in recent years, the Religious Right has moved away from discussing morality to ‘rights,’ especially the ‘rights of the unborn.’” This is portrayed as an ironic development, given that “[t]alking in terms of individual rights used to be primarily the purview of liberals.” The book is The Rights Turn in Conservative Christian Politics: How Abortion Transformed the Culture Wars, by political scientist Andrew Lewis. But is the discussion of “‘rights,’ especially the ‘rights of the unborn’” among social conservatives really a “recent” move? Not exactly. For example, one of the leading “anti-abortion” groups in America is the National Right to Life Committee, which was founded in 1968. Furthermore, the use of “rights” language with respect to abortion was not unique to one organization, or to activists. For example, in the original New York Times article reporting the Supreme Court’s January 1973 Roe v. Wade decision striking down abortion laws, they said that in May of 1972 President Richard Nixon had written a letter to Cardinal Terence Cooke, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, in which the president spoke out for “the right to life of literally hundreds of thousands of unborn children.” It appears that the Religion News Service had simply mis-characterized author Lewis’ position by referring to the shift toward using “the rights of the unborn” as “recent.” Indeed, in the interview, Lewis himself suggests the change occurred “[o]nce Roe v. Wade happened, and the decade after,” which would hardly be “recent.” But, as indicated above, even that assertion is inaccurate. Another odd assertion is Lewis’s statement in the interview regarding the relationship between the language used by those supportive of legal abortion and the language used by those who oppose it: “They began countering the left’s ‘right to choose’ language with their own potent language.” As noted above, conservatives have talked about the “right to life” all along. It is the Left that has had to scramble to find new language. Around the time of Roe, liberals did not hesitate to call themselves “pro-abortion,” or at least to speak about a “right to abortion.” But over time they found out that “pro-abortion” was a losing term for them, and it was their language that evolved to avoid talking about the real subject (abortion), and instead to use a euphemism like “the right to choose.” Another example of the Left’s shifting language is the name of the well-known pro-abortion group that is often just referred to by the acronym “NARAL.” This group went from being dubbed the “National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws” to being the “National Abortion Rights Action League” (adding “rights” to their name) to being the “National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League” (expanding the range of “rights” they purport to defend) to now calling themselves “NARAL Pro-Choice America.” Also odd is this statement by Lewis: “As conservative Christians start engaging on a wider array of things, particularly issues that might be controversial and the base might not be sure what to do with, the leadership always ties it to abortion.” He makes it sound as though looking for the implications for abortion in various pieces of legislation (such as, for example, Obamacare) is merely a political strategy. Does it not occur to him that we really believe the things we say, and that although there are many aspect[...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/e57fCy-Kxw0/At_The_March_for_Life_%2831864820853%29.jpg




Following God's Call to Adopt in Ethiopia

Tue, 07 Nov 2017 08:29:03 -0600

November is National Adoption Month. To recognize this important issue, we are publishing personal adoption testimonies this month. Shortly after we were married, my husband and I felt that God was calling us to live out our married life as missionaries. We joined the Comboni Missionaries, and after a one year period of formation we were ready to go to mission. A small village mission in Guatemala was chosen as the best match for our skill set and we began to study Spanish. However, two weeks before the planned departure our mission was changed. We would no longer be going to Central America but instead, to our great surprise, to Africa. We went with a commitment to serve as missionaries for three years wherever we were sent. If someone had told us that we would be serving in Ethiopia for more than six years and that when we did return our family would be majority Ethiopian, we wouldn’t have believed it! We had never thought of nor planned to adopt. In February 2010, my husband and I arrived in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The sounds, the smells, the sights—everything that was so new and strange slowly became familiar. The community that was once foreign and unfamiliar became our home. We had the desire to share our love more deeply and to welcome a child into our family. We wanted to adopt a baby from Ethiopia. Living in Ethiopia, the process was slightly different though not less complicated than in the U.S. We began working on the paperwork. We met with the Missionaries of Charity and expressed our interest in adopting a child. On April 30, 2012 (the feast day of Our Lady of Africa), they matched us with a six-month-old baby girl from Northern Ethiopia with intense eyes and big dimples. Her name was Emebet, which in Amharic (a language commonly spoken in Ethiopia) means “honored woman” or “special lady.” I immediately relocated from the south where we were living to the capital to visit with her each day. During the five week period of waiting to become her legal parents, we felt she might be taken from us before she became our adopted daughter as we saw her battle meningitis and then shortly afterwards measles. It was during this difficult time that my husband felt for the first time like her dad. Visiting her in the afternoon, he found her sick with measles, which is such a contagious disease that she had to be temporarily placed in an isolated part of the orphanage. She was face down and crying desperately in her crib in fear, pain, and loneliness, her body covered in a rash and her nose running from the illness and the tears. He scooped her up into his arms, laid her head on his shoulder, and sang softly, rocking her back and forth. She grew quiet and settled. A couple minutes later she lifted her head and pushed herself back to gaze into his face—who was this who was holding her? He smiled at her and whispered confidently, “I’m your dad and will hold you now forever.” We continued to open the plan of our family to God’s love. Many changes related to orphan care and adoption were taking place within the country, and it was a very challenging process, but two years later to our amazement we welcomed two more children into our home—Isayas, a 14-month-old active and happy boy, and Teibe, an eight-month-old affectionate and snuggly girl. Isayas’s name is the Amharic version of the prophet Isaiah, meaning “God is salvation.” Teibe’s name comes from Therese Bethlehem—her first name is in honor of St. Teresa of Kolkata (Mother Teresa) and her middle name reminds us of the joy and hope that was sparked there with the birth of Jesus. We returned to North America last year, after more than six years in service. Our youngest is now four years old! This week we will be blessed with the visit of a Norwegian family that also adopted a boy and a girl from the sam[...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/Pq91NtGwSG8/Benga_1200x630.jpg




Did the ACLU Hide the Ball and Rush an Abortion?

Mon, 06 Nov 2017 07:42:30 -0600

(image)

Based on the DOJ’s recently-filed cert petition before the Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan, it appears that this is exactly what may have happened.

As you may recall, this was the case featuring an unlawful immigrant minor being held in the care and custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the legal question of whether the ACLU could force the government to turn her over to get an abortion. Last week, after the full D.C. Circuit unexpectedly stepped in and ordered the government to do exactly that, it did—and she got an abortion—but now it is looking like this series of events may have unfolded in a manner not entirely on the up-and-up.

As recounted in the DOJ’s cert petition, there was an exchange of emails between ACLU and DOJ attorneys about when and how Jane Doe (the minor girl) would be taken for counseling and then an abortion—which must be separated by 24 hours under Texas law. Here, the ACLU told the DOJ a counseling appointment for Ms. Doe would occur on October 25—an assertion on which the DOJ relied to conclude it still had time to file for an emergency stay before the abortion would occur on October 26. However, at the last minute the ACLU got the doctor who had counseled Ms. Doe the previous week to agree to do the abortion on October 25—and yet didn’t tell the DOJ. By early morning on the 25th, Ms. Doe had gotten the abortion, and it was too late for DOJ lawyers—left in the dark by the ACLU’s deliberate withholding of this information—to request an emergency stay. The question now is whether this conceal and coverup operation violated legal ethics rules.

The DOJ cert petition argues two main points:

  1. Because the ACLU unilaterally acted in a way that made this case moot (by taking Ms. Doe for the abortion) before the opposing party (the DOJ) had an opportunity to respond by being able to request an emergency stay from the Supreme Court, longstanding Supreme Court precedent requires the case to be dismissed with orders to lower courts to vacate their judgments.
  2. Related to the failure to inform the DOJ the abortion would occur the early morning of the 25th, the ACLU counsel may have violated legal ethical duties.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the first argument, this would be a positive development as it would wipe out the erroneous en banc D.C. Circuit ruling and require the district court to dismiss all the remaining abortion rights claims (though often skipped over in recent discussions, this case features a number of other unnamed minors whose abortion claims are being advanced by the court-appointed guardian, and the case would have continued even though Ms. Doe got an abortion). The second argument should be taken seriously for the simple reason that our legal system depends on it.

What is deeply scary, and beyond the legal banter of this case, is that the ACLU apparently had such a fervent desire to see Ms. Doe’s baby killed that it chose to walk in the shadows of concealment and deception to do so.

(image)


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/xv1jFA79P2Y/ACLU_1200x630.jpg




Scalise Shooting Declared to be an Act of Terrorism Under Virginia Law, So Why is the FBI Confused?

Thu, 02 Nov 2017 14:04:51 -0500

On October 6th, the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Alexandria, Va., announced his findings in a report regarding the use of force by law enforcement officers during the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.) and others at a baseball field on June 14, 2017.[i] Bryan L. Porter concluded that the multiple shooting and attempted mass assassination constituted an act of terrorism under Virginia law. The Porter report is significant because its conclusion stands in sharp contrast to the report offered by two FBI officials at a press conference eight days after the shooting.[ii] Andrew Vale, the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, indicated that the shooter acted alone and that there was “no nexus to terrorism.”[iii] He also stated that the agency would be investigating the shooting as an assault on a member of Congress and an assault on a federal officer. No indication was given that a terrorism investigation was being conducted, and the statements made seemed to downplay the shooter’s ideological and political beliefs. It is important to recall the key facts in the case. Early on the morning of June 14, Rep. Scalise, the Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives, and numerous other GOP House members and senators were the primary targets of a mass assassination attempt at an Alexandria baseball diamond. Scalise was shot in the hip and nearly died from his wounds. Two other players on the field, not elected officials, were shot and received dangerous wounds. Two United States Capitol Police agents, present as part of the protective detail for Rep. Scalise, were wounded by gunfire—one seriously.[iv] The would-be assassin, James T. Hodgkinson, was killed after being shot three times. Commonwealth’s Attorney Bryan L. Porter made the following observation about the would-be assassin’s political affiliation and motivations: Hodgkinson held strong political opinions and was very unhappy about the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. He spent a significant amount of time on social media, using it to express his political views, such as his strong support for Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. Another example of this is that Hodgkinson “liked” the Southern Poverty Law Center on Facebook—indicating that he was a fan of the organization and its attacking brand of politics. Citing the Virginia terrorism statute, Porter confidently concluded, “The evidence in this case establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect, fueled by rage against Republican legislators, decided to commit an act of terrorism as that term is defined by the Code of Virginia.”[v] Page 9 of Porter’s report may contain the most significant information pointing to the FBI’s misjudgment in the case—evidence that Hodgkinson conducted a number of surveillance sweeps of the playing field. After the shooting, there was a report to police that Hodgkinson had parked his van at the field on June 10th and walked around the field “casing” it. Porter reported that “at least one member of the Republican baseball team remembered seeing the suspect sitting in the Simpson field stands and watching the team practice on the morning before the incident, June 13.”[vi]   The Alexandria prosecutor’s report also noted that video files from Hodgkinson’s phone “show video of [the baseball diamond] recorded in April 2017.” This field cannot be described as a tourist site in Alexandria. Rather, it is a relatively unattractive part of the city that one would not visit at 7 a.m. but for the baseball practice. Furthermore, “several witnesses came forward and reported seeing the suspect walking around [the field] in May 2017.” Porter observed[...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/cKHL-4wk-5M/Scalise_1200x630.jpg




Social Conservative Review - November 1, 2017

Wed, 01 Nov 2017 09:17:53 -0500

Dear Friends, A disturbing idea has been embedded in our culture for quite some time. It is the idea that in general, people should be left to their own devices to decide what is right and wrong for them. In other words, people, particularly children, should not be imposed upon or “nurtured,” they should instead be free to take on their own “nature,” whatever that may manifest to be. This is illustrated by the growing phenomenon of parents insisting that their children must be free to choose their gender. Those who adhere to this philosophy, I would argue, are not being totally honest with themselves. What I mean by this is that those who insist that everyone must be free to decide for themselves what is right or wrong are the very same people that expect society to adhere to certain rules, such as the prohibitions against murder, rape, and theft. This is quite telling, because it reveals that there are some things in life that most people agree are inherently true and therefore non-negotiable; indeed, they can and should be imposed. This reveals the inherent flaw in the “nature over nurture” logic. Believers know that if man is left to his own devices, he will eventually devolve into a selfish beast. In other words, man does not come upon moral behavior by chance or by nature—it must be taught and shown to him. This fact underscores the critical role that parents have in educating their children. When believers pass on the tenets of their faith to their children, they are giving them a foundation to not only become a stable member of society and have a successful future, but to enjoy a life of happiness that can only be found by serving God. As Ian Rowe has written in Family Studies, even our country’s most wealthy educational benefactors do not understand this basic fact—that children who are most likely to succeed are those whose parents are their primary educators. More and more evidence for the importance of stable family structures continues to come out every day. May we lead by example and help transform our culture into one that values and upholds the family unit. Thank you for your prayers and for your continued support of FRC and the family. Sincerely, Dan Hart Managing Editor for Publications Family Research Council   FRC Articles Ignoring Military’s Reasons for Transgender Order, Unelected Judge Sets National Security Policy – Tony Perkins In abortion case, we let two children down: Jane Doe and Baby Doe – Travis Weber Trump is a great champion of religious liberty -- a welcome change from Obama – Tony Perkins All Hat, No Decency – Ken Blackwell Foster Parenting and Adoption: Answering God’s Call to Love – Kathy Athearn Vice President Pence Announces Relief for Middle East Christians – Travis Weber Georgetown University’s Identity Crisis – Kelly Marcum We Need To Rethink Our Sexual Culture – Dan Hart In Today’s Media Environment, It’s “News” When the Department of Justice Actually Enforces the Law – Travis Weber Is the Air Force Finished With People of Faith? – Travis Weber   Religious Liberty Religious Liberty in the Public Square The Uses and Abuses of Hate – Robert Knight, Townhall When Will The Media Stop Trusting A Hate Group To Label Hate Groups? – Margot Cleveland, The Federalist Federal court rules World War I memorial cross must be torn down – Todd Starnes, Fox News 91% of pastors want to speak freely without govt punishment – Alliance Defending Freedom ACLU Silent on Gay Coffee Shop Owner Who Kicked Out Pro-Lifers – Amber Randall, The Daily Signal Georgetown may defund student group for defending Church teaching on marriage – Claire Chretien, LifeSiteNew[...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/z7O0LnkIK8w/SCR_1200x630.jpg




Foster Parenting and Adoption: Answering God's Call to Love

Tue, 31 Oct 2017 07:30:33 -0500

November is National Adoption Month. To recognize this important issue, we will be publishing personal adoption testimonies over the next four weeks. Did you know that there are thousands of children and youth in foster care who are waiting for permanent, loving families? For most of us, we can’t imagine what life would be like if we hadn’t grown up with the love, protection, and guidance of our families. God created us to be in a family.  So how can we, as a church and as caring communities, help children that are waiting for families? We can open our hearts and minds to what the Lord wants us to do. Loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and loving our neighbors as ourselves includes helping orphans. Consider fostering children to show them God’s love. You can also consider being a family that provides respite care for foster families. In addition, you can provide clothing and toys to foster families or meals during their times of transition. Finally, providing words of encouragement and praying for foster families is extremely helpful. To help you picture what fostering a child is like, I would like to share my family’s personal experience. My husband Mike and I have been licensed for foster care since the summer of 2013. We are currently waiting to receive a call to foster a girl between the ages of five and seven. However, this will not be our first foster child. Our first foster care experience began four years ago. “There is an eight-month-old girl who needs a placement today. Are you interested?” Not much more information was given to me on July 12, 2013. My heart and mind were racing. I was excited to talk to my husband, Mike, but I wasn’t able to get ahold of him at work.  (We had been licensed to foster a child between newborn and five years of age.) The social worker needed an answer as soon as possible. So I called her back, telling her I knew that Mike would say “yes.” Shortly afterwards, I got ahold of Mike and we met each other at the agency’s transition home where the social worker and baby girl were waiting for us.  When I saw little Nazarene sleeping so peacefully, it was hard for me to imagine her circumstances being so bad that she had to be removed from her mother’s custody during the night. She was sleeping so soundly that I questioned waking her, but I wanted to comfort her. So I picked her up and held her tight. She was beautiful and innocent. This was the beginning of our family’s relationship with Nazarene and a long road of unknowns.  Foster parenting requires flexibility and patience. If we didn’t believe that our Heavenly Father is sovereign and in control, it would have been much more difficult. 1 Timothy 1:7 says, “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” We had to trust God’s plan as we took Nazarene to visit her mom on a weekly basis for two years, and wonder if she would go back to her mom who was dealing with severe mental and family problems, or if we would eventually be able to adopt her. Finally, in January 2016 our family adopted little Nazarene. We gave her a new middle name, “Faith.” The love that Mike, Joy (age 12), Lydia (age 10), our extended family, and I have for Nazarene is indescribable. We love her profoundly and pray that she will one day know how much her Heavenly Father loves her—sending his Son to die for her. In addition, thankfully, we have a good relationship with Nazarene’s birth mom—e-mailing her pictures of our little girl and meeting her twice a year. Our prayer is that she, too, will realize how much God loves her.  If you feel God opening your heart an[...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/kZyYWG1UN-E/adoption_1200x630.jpg




Vice President Pence Announces Relief for Middle East Christians

Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:26:30 -0500

(image)

Several days ago, Vice President Pence announced that the Trump administration would address the needs of the Middle East’s Christian community directly, bypassing UN aid programs which have been largely ineffective in helping Christians affected by ISIS. Speaking before a gathering of the group In Defense of Christians, Pence stated:

Here’s the sad reality: The United Nations claims that more than 160 projects are in Christian areas, but for a third of those projects, there are no Christians to help. The believers in Nineveh, Iraq, have had less than 2 percent of their housing needs addressed, and the majority of Christians and Yazidis remain in shelters.

Projects that are supposedly marked “finished” have little more than a U.N. flag hung outside an unusable building, in many cases a school.

And while faith-based groups with proven track records and deep roots in these communities are more than willing to assist, the United Nations too often denies their funding requests. My friends, those days are over.

Our fellow Christians and all who are persecuted in the Middle East should not have to rely on multinational institutions when America can help them directly. And tonight, it is my privilege to announce that President Trump has ordered the State Department to stop funding ineffective relief efforts at the United Nations. And from this day forward, America will provide support directly to persecuted communities through USAID.

We will no longer rely on the United Nations alone to assist persecuted Christians and minorities in the wake of genocide and the atrocities of terrorist groups. The United States will work hand-in-hand from this day forward with faith-based groups and private organizations to help those who are persecuted for their faith.

This is good news indeed. While much of the focus in the Middle East has been on defeating ISIS, communities left devastated in its wake will need to rebuild and try to get on with their lives. For the Middle East’s Christian community, politically less powerful than other communities and often without a voice or advocate in the region’s larger decision-making, this is especially important. For too long, they haven’t received proper assistance in returning to their ancestral lands (the same lands the first Christians walked nearly 2,000 years ago), even while Iran and other power players try to come in and ply their influence in the vacuum created by ISIS’s defeat.

(image)


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/V4AHcDbNZdE/libya_migrantsalt_1200x630.jpg




Georgetown University's Identity Crisis

Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:04:45 -0500

In today’s bitter and vitriolic political climate, there are few labels more intellectually lazy than “hate group.” When you label an entity as a “hate group,” you automatically demonize it. In so doing, you immediately remove from your shoulders any mantle of responsibility to dialogue or engage in civil discourse with this denounced entity. “They” are haters and must be sacrificed at the altar of tolerance without any further question. This cowardly melodrama is currently playing out at our nation’s oldest Catholic university, where a student group has come under attack for taking the allegedly “hateful” position that Christianity got it right when it said sexual relations were meant for marriage, and that marriage was meant to be between a man and woman. Students at Georgetown University founded Love Saxa, an affiliate of the Love & Fidelity Network, because they saw a gaping void on campus. In the face of the ubiquitous hookup culture, widespread pornography usage, increasing sexual assaults, and attacks on the institution of marriage, Love Saxa sought to be a voice that would argue for the cultivation of healthy relationships, the repossession of sexual integrity, and the defense of traditional marriage. Love Saxa’s position is not a popular one, particularly on a D.C. campus of politically active millennials. But one would hope that its place at a Catholic university, even one so liberal as Georgetown, would provide some level of security. Alas, however, when the utter complacency of the Georgetown University administration is combined with the insatiable appetite of social justice warriors, no strand of orthodox Christianity can be left unthreatened. On Monday, members of Georgetown’s Pride group filed a petition to sanction Love Saxa and strip it of its university funding and ability to operate on campus. Several days earlier, the editorial board of Georgetown’s student paper The Hoya—whose staff clearly hold up CNN and The New York Times as paragons of journalistic integrity—penned an op-ed accusing Love Saxa of fostering hostility and intolerance because of their commitment to the Christian view of procreative marriage. The authors of the article at least recognize that Love Saxa’s mission statement is in line with the Catholic Church’s view of marriage and sexuality; however, their faculties of logic fail them when they go on to claim that despite upholding the same faith as their university, Love Saxa is violating the university’s code of conduct by arguing against same-sex marriage. But then, logic and rationality needn’t play a large role when one can simply bandy about “hate group” terminology. The Left’s modus operandi appears to be to toss out words like “intolerant” and “dehumanizing” alongside a few accusations of “hostility” and “bigotry” and hope that in the subsequent maelstrom of indignant outcries, no one notices the utter lack of coherency in their position. Unfortunately, their ploy has proven successful far too frequently. Even now, in the face of this sham of a petition, Georgetown’s official statement is predictably weak, and they even appear to be giving a semblance of credence to the calls to silence Love Saxa: “As a Catholic and Jesuit institution, Georgetown listens deeply and discerningly to the plurality of voices that exist among our students, faculty, and staff and is committed to the care of each member of our community,” Rachel Pugh, a university spokesperson, said. Pugh provides no further clarification of how the school will deal with a “plurality of voi[...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/WSfoERIx4Bg/Georgetown_University.png




We Need To Rethink Our Sexual Culture

Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:56:44 -0500

Ezra Klein is on to something. Klein, the editor of the news and opinion website Vox, which leans decidedly progressive-Left, recently wrote a piece detailing his growing realization about the shocking prevalence of sexual harassment and assault that women (and men) suffer in our culture, which is just now beginning to fully come to light in the public square after the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke earlier this month. What’s startling about Klein’s piece is the candor he displays. For a progressive, this level of honesty on a social issue is nothing short of a thunderbolt: There is a pervasiveness to sexual assault in America that defies the word “problem.” When a system creates an outcome this consistently, this predictably, in this many different spaces, you have to at least consider the possibility that the outcome is intended, that the system is working as designed. Perhaps we need to do more than try to root out the worst abusers. Perhaps we need to rethink our sexual culture too. “Perhaps we need to rethink our sexual culture too.” This is exactly what social conservatives have been shouting from the rooftops for decades. But in the public square, they have been consistently shot down as, at best, hopelessly old-fashioned and out of touch with modern sensibilities, and at worst, trying to control women’s bodies. How did we get here? Let’s quickly review some indisputable facts of our country’s history. With every passing year since the early 1960’s, our culture has seen a steady progression of permissiveness of sex outside of marriage. What was once considered a societal taboo slowly but surely became more and more accepted. As television, movies, and popular culture crossed one line after another, much of society followed along, creating what is now known as the Sexual Revolution. What has this revolution wrought in our society? Many things, of course, but with regard to our personal lives, it chiefly brought us widespread acceptance of contraception as a way to have consequence-free sex with whomever we wish, and when that fails, to abort the baby that is conceived. Contraception and abortion are thus upheld as paragons of freedom and autonomy by those who think that the Sexual Revolution finally freed women from the slavery and repression of pregnancy and childbirth. In effect, women are now as “free” as men to sleep around as much as they want without consequences. But are women now happier as a result? Klein answers this for us: Last week, the hashtag #MeToo took over social media. Virtually every woman I follow, on every social platform, no matter the industry or walk of life they came from, shared stories of harassment, abuse, and worse. I read searing tales from reporters and techies, chefs and yogis, civil servants and mountain climbers. This is the cold reality that progressives must face. What if the revolution that created the perceived “freedom” of consequence-free sex for women unwittingly turned those very same women into objects of sexual pleasure for men? If there is no consequence to sex, what’s the big deal about it, anyway? Logically speaking, what is the difference between shaking hands with someone and having sex with them? If sex is merely a social transaction, why are women so instinctually protective of giving themselves away? Most men don’t seem to have that same instinct, so shouldn’t women be the same? Isn’t this about equality between the sexes anyway? If women now see sex as transactional through their celebration of contraception and abortion, why can’t they give it to men as a favor if men who are in positions of powe[...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/Iar8fR5nvFU/victim_woman_1200x630.jpg




In Today's Media Environment, It's "News" When the Department of Justice Actually Enforces the Law

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:37:22 -0500

When Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he was sending an experienced DOJ attorney to prosecute the murder of a transgendered individual in Iowa, while at the same time announcing that the DOJ would properly interpret Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination as not including “gender identity” or any other category, progressive activists and some media outlets were confused. Slate called this “a move that surprised some familiar with his record on LGBTQ rights,” and The New York Times observed, “[i]n taking th[is] step, Mr. Sessions, a staunch conservative, is sending a signal that he has made a priority of fighting violence against transgender people individually, even as he has rolled back legal protections for them collectively.” Yet the real story here is how media and activists are puzzled by the supposed “contradiction” in these steps—a contradiction which only exists if one is looking at law as an activist does—as a means to an end. All AG Sessions is doing in both of these situations is simply enforcing the laws on the books. The reason for the confusion in some quarters is that the modern progressive activist, who looks at law as nothing more than a tool to accomplish policy preferences, cannot conceive of the idea of an attorney general and DOJ that would actually fairly and faithfully apply the laws that currently exist—even if such application cuts across the usual social and political dividing lines. They can’t conceive of those in power actually looking at their job objectively and simply enforcing the law, regardless of whether they agree with it as a policy matter. Yet a constitutional conservative, who understands the Constitution as the Framers did, looks at this as the only right approach. The fact that these two decisions by AG Sessions cut across social and political lines thus causes confusion in the activist’s mind. Regardless of one’s policy position on transgenderism, federal criminal law does currently consider murders of individuals which the perpetrator allegedly targets because of their perceived or actual gender identity to be a separate criminal offense. Regardless of Jeff Sessions’ personal views on gender identity, he is bound to enforce that law. That’s what he is doing in this case. Meanwhile, regardless of one’s policy position on transgenderism, federal employment law does currently consider sex discrimination to be prohibited—and only sex discrimination. Unlike the federal criminal law, Title VII does not list “gender identity” as a separate class. Thus AG Sessions will enforce the law as written—prohibiting sex discrimination—and nothing more. This is in stark contrast to the previous administration’s approach, which cherry-picked which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore based on their political ideology. Under AG Holder, the Obama administration unilaterally decided to include gender identity in sex discrimination protections. Now, all AG Sessions is doing is returning us to the status quo. This is only remarkable if one views everything—including the law—through an ideological lens out of which one must achieve uniform policy results. The rule of law itself has no value, and makes no sense, to such a person. But AG Sessions’ actions make perfect sense if law is to be followed, not twisted to serve a purpose. Until and if Congress changes the law, the DOJ will enforce what is currently written. This is a welcome change for all who want to live under the rule of law.[...]


Media Files:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/frcblog/~5/FZKX8z1zURA/DOJ_1200x630.jpg