12.03.20Many Christians, especially when it comes to LGBT-related issues, have bought into what might be called “the inevitability thesis.” Nearly everything in our culture has convinced them to assume that it is futile for anyone to resist their same-sex attractions. And, any attempt to help someone, especially young people, reduce their behaviors and attractions is just as futile, and probably even illegal.
A ruling last month from the 11th Circuit court challenges the inevitability thesis.
12.02.20“Hard cases make bad law,” and national emergencies make hard cases. A notorious example of this maxim is the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to vindicate the claims of West Coast Americans who were put in “assignment” or “assembly centers” en masse during World War II solely because they were of Japanese descent and, thus, inherently had a greater potential for treason and espionage. The Court’s reasoning...
By Dr. Michael L. Brown | 11.30.20Did you miss this good news? As reported recently by Liberty Counsel: “A three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down laws that ban counselors from providing minor clients with help to reduce or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or gender confusion.”
This was a victory for freedom, for tolerance, for individual rights, and for therapist-client privilege. Above all, it was a victory for minors.
By Dr. Michael L. Brown | 11.12.20I want to assure you that the title to this article is not click bait. Rather, it reflects the very open sentiments of the extreme leftist, political commentator Keith Olbermann. He has made himself perfectly clear... My answer to the question of whether Christian conservatives will soon be prosecuted by the millions and removed from American society is an emphatic (but qualified) no.
It is an emphatic “no” because there is no way that tens of millions of Christian conservatives would simply stand by and let this happen. Not a chance.
11.11.20Illinois Family Institute has joined a friend of the court ("amicus") brief supporting Catholic Social Services in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which was just argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.
At the federal level, the courts generally enforce this amendment by requiring 1) a compelling government interest, and 2) the least restrictive means narrowly tailored to actually achieve that interest (called the strict scrutiny test), before allowing a government to infringe Constitutional rights.
Department of Justice Defends Capitol Hill Baptist Church Against D.C. Mayor’s COVID-19 Restrictions
10.05.20Attorney General William Barr and the U.S. Department of Justice have filed an official "statement of interest" backing the Capitol Hill Baptist Church lawsuit against D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.
The lawsuit alleges that Bowser has acted unfairly in the application of a ban on outdoor church services that exceed 100 people. The DOJ sided with the church, writing that the actions of D.C. officials have violated the 1st and 5th Amendments, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
By Andrew Willis | 07.09.20The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) has once again entered the cultural frays. Here are three recent decisions that will have lasting consequences on people of faith.
By Christine Misner | 06.27.20According to an old adage, there are things people should avoid discussing with friends, at dinner, at work, or just about anywhere else – politics, religion, and money. Lately, however, politics and religion have been issues people can’t seem to...
By Laurie Higgins | 06.22.20(Im)moderate Republicans, Libertarian-leaning Republicans, Republicans with dollar signs rather than Scripture reflected in their myopic eyes have been pushing conservatives toward the end of the short pier, hoping that either spines will crumble or conservatives will tumble into the dark waters. Supremacist Court Justice/lawmaker Neil-the-Usurper-Gorsuch just gave conservatives a huge shove toward the watery abyss.
By Laurie Higgins | 06.20.20Conservative writer, podcaster, and attorney Ben Shapiro interviews Ryan T. Anderson, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and founder and editor of Public Discourse on the dire implications of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that has roiled the political waters, including within the Republican Party. They discuss the likely affect of this decision on Title IX, speech mandates, businesses owned by people of faith, and more. To better understand the profoundly troubling nature of this decision, take 12 minutes to watch and listen to this important discussion.
By Laurie Higgins | 06.17.20In a blistering must-see address on the U.S. Senate floor, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), the youngest member of the U.S. Senate, condemned Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Writing for the Majority, Gorsuch essentially legislated from the bench, changing duly passed federal law with far-reaching and destructive consequences for all Americans, especially religious Americans.
In Times Of Crisis, Elected Officials Must Be Held to One Consistent Standard – The U.S. Constitution
06.13.20When those entrusted with power to protect the God given rights of the people do so selectively, arbitrarily picking and choosing which freedoms are worthy of protection and to what extent, then we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law but by the whims of men.
06.08.20Until recently, several states—including Minnesota—declared that it was unlawful to engage in the free exercise of religion in groups of ten or more. When churches dared pursue legal recourse to correct that issue, politicians, pundits and journalists offered criticism. As one of the attorneys on the receiving end of that criticism on more than one occasion, it left me perplexed. “What’s the big deal?” they might say, “Why can’t churches just worship online?!