Rogue Nation: Birthplace of Religious Freedom Added to the List of Countries Where Christians Face the Most Persecution

has-the-government-declared-war-on-religious-liberty

The silence was deafening as the United States, the birthplace of religious freedom, joined the infamous ranks of the world’s worst places to be a Christian—places where followers of Jesus Christ face the worst harassment and persecution because of their faith. Major American media outlets largely ignored a story of immense implications for the future of the Judeo-Christian worldview and western civilization.

This dirty dozen is a list created by the International Christian Concern (ICC), a watchdog organization formed in 1995 to protect the rights of Christians worldwide, released in its 2016 Hall of Shame Report. It was not surprising that the Islamist dominated countries of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Nigeria made the list for their persecution and killing of the Christian “infidels.” Nor was it a shock that Russia, Mexico and India were noted because of the suppression of evangelical Christianity either by people espousing other variations of Christianity or by Jesus-hating radical Hindus. It is even understandable that that the totalitarian communist/atheist states of China and North Korea were included.

Nearly simultaneous with the ICC’s report was the European Parliament’s acknowledgement that Christianity, not Islam, is the world’s most persecuted religion. The Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World, confirmed that Christians are currently the earth’s most harassed and intimidated religious group that “routinely suffer religiously motivated persecution.”

Regarding the ICC report, what raises eyebrows is the first-time-ever addition of the United States to the list of the twelve worst countries for the Christian faith.  The ICC’s explanation is as follows:

“Throughout the US, current events and shifting perceptions are causing conflicts between Christian beliefs and public sentiment. This cultural shift affects Christians businesses, organizations and individuals through legal action, free speech infringement, public expressions of faith, and employment.”

The article explains that Christians in the US are facing constant attacks in the media, where they are portrayed as bigoted, racist, sexist, and close-minded. Furthermore, Christians and all religious people are being marginalized through laws and legal action. Specific examples include Christian bakers fined $135,000 for declining to back a cake for a same-sex wedding, Intervarsity Christian fellowship losing official recognition as a student club at California public colleges, employees being terminated because of their faith, and many more. The ICC report cites that claims of “intolerance” and “inequality” are being used to bully Christians and create legal precedents that are actually undermining well established First Amendment rights, including the freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.

As we celebrate the peaceful transfer of power, President-elect Trump may provide some relief for believers if he fulfills his promise to respect and restore religious freedom. The overwhelming evidence of the past eight years reveals that President Obama’s legacy must include the truth that he was no friend of religious freedom, exasperating Christians by his First Amendment undermining actions, which include, but are not limited to:

  • Trying to force Catholic nuns (The Little Sisters of the Poor) and other church groups to provide abortion-related products and services.
  • Supporting the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples (Obergefell v. Hodges).
  • The United States Commission on Civil Rights issuing its 2016 anti-religious hit piece report suggesting that sexual liberty (i.e. new anti-discrimination laws) should prevail over religious liberty claims (First Amendment protected) and asserting that “religious freedom” and “religious liberty” are code for anti-LBGT discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc. (i.e. Christians are the “deplorables”).
  • The Department of Justice and Department of Education’s 2016 transgender bathroom mandate, forcing public schools to allow student access to bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding based on their perceived gender identity rather than their biological sex.

The ICC posits that part of the explanation for the change may be growing secularization, citing a Pew Research poll showing that those the total U.S. adult population identifying as non-religious jumped by seven percent in just seven years, from 16 percent to 23 percent (2007-2014). Notably, a stunning 35 percent of millennials identify as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular! The report, How America Changed During Barack Obama’s Presidency, confirms that those identifying as Christians also dropped seven percent, from 78 percent to 71 percent, though the share of evangelicals has remained fairly stable. So, what does this all mean?

First, it means we must recognize that there is rapidly growing public pressure on American Christians today, as many secular-progressive elite forces are seeking to drive us out of the public square into hiding and to silence us and the gospel of Jesus Christ. We live in a time where, sadly, the church is far more influenced by the culture than it is influencing the culture. “One nation” once “under God” has become “divisible,” and divided, as we are now left “with liberty and justice for” some. Most Christians in the US are not handling the current hostile environment very well and many are simply giving in to the pressure, allowing themselves to be silenced and marginalized. Biblical resistance is required. Millennials are the most vulnerable to cultural pressure and the church must do a much better job of inculcating a comprehensive biblical worldview, passing the baton of “the faith of our fathers,” to them.

Second, it means, as I have been warning others for more than a decade, that we are rapidly moving from “soft” persecution towards “hard” persecution of the church in a place formerly known as the land of the free and home of the brave. It is true that while some of us are losing our livelihood, we are not being imprisoned or killed yet, but if the pendulum keeps swinging in its current direction, those prospects may not be far off. The separation of sheep and goats, already well underway, will continue and accelerate. Do not be alarmed that many you thought were authentic believers were only pretending. We need to realize that persecution is a normal part of being a Christian and gird our loins accordingly.

Third, it means that if we value our freedom and the gospel of Jesus Christ, we had better wake up, engage the culture by speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15), and fight the good fight of faith by actively pushing back culturally, politically, and legally. The American “health and wealth gospel” will be nakedly unmasked for the fraud that it always was. This is not the time for wimpy, half-hearted, “fluffy-bunny” Jesus or “comfortable” Christianity. Those days are long gone in America.  But do not despair!  We have the hope and confidence that our ultimate victory is secure in Jesus Christ. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness had not overcome it (John 1:5).

Ready or not, Biblical promises of persecution are about to get very “real” and, especially for the unprepared, it’s going to be a rough ride. You are not alone. There is a strong remnant. You are surrounded by a cloud of faithful followers of Jesus Christ. Be much in the Word, prayer, and fellowship. Be filled with the Spirit. Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus.

has-the-government-declared-war-on-religious-liberty

Orwellian U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: “Religious Freedom” is Code for Discrimination (Translation: Sexual Liberty Trumps Religious Liberty)

 Something very important—that should be sending ominous shockwaves through America’s communities of faith—occurred earlier this month which, not surprisingly, was largely ignored by the secular progressive media. The liberal elite “Emperor,” now stripped bare, revealed with absolutely stunning immoral clarity that it was never the plan to tolerate religious freedom. Martin R. Castro, appointed by President Obama in 2011, wrote in the September 2016 report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights:

 “The phrases “religious liberty” and “religious freedom” will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance. . . . [T]oday, as in the past, religion is being used as . . . a weapon . . . by those seeking to deny others equality. In our nation’s past religion has been used to justify slavery and later, Jim Crow laws. We now see “religious liberty” arguments sneaking their way back into our political and constitutional discourse . . . in an effort to undermine the rights of some Americans. This generation of Americans must stand up and speak out to ensure that religion never again be twisted to deny others the full promise of America.”

 Under the leadership of Castro, it is no surprise that the report’s two central “findings” are:

  • “Civil rights protections ensuring nondiscrimination, as embodied in the Constitution, laws, and policies, are of pre-eminent importance in American jurisprudence.”
  • “Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon these civil rights.”

However this commission language is code for: “We progressive elites prefer new fabricated faux civil rights, particularly ‘sexual liberty,’ over religious liberty (even though the latter is explicitly protected by the First Amendment).  Therefore, when backwards religious institutions or individuals, like the bigoted Christian colleges in California in the recent SB 1146 battle, have the Unmitigated gall, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to assert religious exemptions from non-discrimination laws, their First Amendment rights don’t matter because they are ‘infringing’ on more important and popular civil rights (i.e. which weigh much more in the scales of justice) than religious freedom.”

University of San Diego School of Law Professor Gail Heriot, in her powerful dissent to the majority opinion in the commission’s report, writes:  “By starting with an assertion that antidiscrimination laws are ‘pre-eminent,’” she writes, “the Commission’s analysis essentially begins with its conclusion. Why should anyone accept it? The Commission said so.” She also told the Washington Times that she was “troubled by the growing attitude that somehow anti-discrimination laws trump everything.”

Ironically, the report, which shamelessly trashes the first civil right embodied in our Bill of Rights, is titled: “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Non-Discrimination Principles with Civil Liberties.” Castro’s Orwellian statements are nothing short of a declaration of war against people of faith and religious institutions. Make no mistake; those pushing the radical sexual liberty agenda have no desire for peace or tolerance, nor will they leave any room in the culture for religious dissenters. I have been warning people of faith for over a decade that the greatest threat to religious liberty is sexual liberty, and this report is Exhibit A, proving my point.

In fact, Castro and his friends have no respect for authentic religious freedom. The report is nothing short of a hit piece, designed to further denigrate and marginalize the place of religion in America. When it comes to the growing conflicts between the new, emerging, and purportedly ‘enlightened’ civil right, sexual liberty, uber-liberals like Castro, the commission’s majority, and California Senator Ricardo Lara (author of SB 1146) believe that backwards ‘unenlightened’ people of faith must always submit, cower in fear and shame, and be silenced. In other words, religious liberty will only be tolerated by the leftist elites to the extent that religious people agree to embrace and applaud unrestrained sexual liberty and expression.  That is a devil’s bargain for people of faith and must be rejected and resisted at all costs, unless we want to see religious freedom disappear in our lifetimes. The loss of religious liberty is a ‘gift’ that I am unwilling to give my children and grandchildren.

California to Christian Colleges: Bow to the idol of sexual liberty, or perish!

SB 1146 Testimony

Religious liberty is on the political chopping block in California. Two heinous bills, targeting California’s religious colleges and universities for legislative destruction, have been silently slithering their way though the halls of the state Capital.  They accomplish liberty-stripping, conscience-decimating goals by first, blocking student aid at  faithful private secondary institutions, and, second, opening the floodgates of financially crippling litigation, giving liberal judges the power to control internal religiously rooted student and personnel policies.

We have been warning Christians that the radical LGBT agenda’s goal is not to embrace diversity and peacefully coexist in a harmonious state of inclusive tolerance with Biblical Christianity.  Their goal is simply to force us to adopt and embrace their vision of radical sexual liberty or to silence us completely–period.  We predicted they would first target Christian businesses, would next attack Christian ministries and educational institutions, and finally finish off churches and pastors.  I wish we were wrong!

California’s assault started several years ago when California adopted Education Code § 66250 et seq. (the Equity in Higher Education Act), which mandated colleges and universities not discriminate on the basis of “gender expression” and “sexual orientation.”  However, as is true with similar federal laws, California’s religious colleges could claim a broad institutional exemption if the application of the law would not be consistent with the religious tenets of the organizations.  But the golden state’s far-left legislature did not wait long to tighten the noose around the necks of Christian Colleges.

In early 2016, AB 1888 was introduced.  This horrific legislation seeks to cut off state and federal funding of Christian colleges by requiring all institutions participating in the Cal Grant program to certify they will not discriminate with regard to students or employees on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. It would also prohibit current Title IX waivers from the US Dept. of Education if the college participates in the Cal Grant program.

SB 1146, following closely on the heels of AB 1888, has the potential of effectively “finishing off” faithful Christian colleges and universities, even if they opt out of federal and state financial aid.  This draconian legislation would radically narrow, if not destroy the existing exemption for religious institutions.  If this bill passes, only schools controlled by religious institutions could claim a religious exemption, but only narrowly, essentially only protecting for their religious study’s departments (ministerial or theological training programs)!  When read in conjunction with existing legislation, SB 1146 coerces religious colleges to choose between keeping their financial aid and abandoning their religiously rooted personnel and student policies.  In other words, bow or die!

Many Christian colleges are pervasively religious—because faith and learning are fully integrated in all subjects. Indeed, the scriptures declare that, in fact, everything is religious or theological, “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it….” (Psalm 24:1 (NIV)). Therefore, trying to make clear distinctions between the secular and sacred at these institutions is both a very foolish and invasive effort.  But SB 1146 gives judges the power to pierce the existing religious bubble of protection, inquire into the various programs at Christian colleges, decide what programs are “religious,” and allow lawsuits to proceed and injunctions issues to stop or control activities deemed sexually discriminatory.

Among the parade of hypothetical horribles, SB 1146 would conceivably allow a biological male, who subjectively believes he is a girl, to sue a Christian college that insists he reside in the male dorm—to sue for gender identity “discrimination” be awarded damages, and obtain an injunction ordering the school to allow him quarter in the girl’s dorm, bathrooms, and showers. This would allow a professor, living with his or her same-sex partner, to sue if terminated.

The attempt to cut off state and federal funding to Christian colleges, granting the “right” to sue and financially cripple institutions, and obtain injunctions to curb “discriminating” religious decisions may be the beginning of the end for biblically faithful Christian colleges.  These egregious bills are the latest example of sexual liberty steam-rolling and crushing religious liberty and are an existential threat to Christian colleges and universities. If we can’t stop them here in California, they may be soon coming to a state near you. These institutions are essentially being told:  either bow to the new American idol of sexual liberty, or watch your institution be “legally” burned at the stake.  This is not a choice, this is tyranny.

These bills are another example of sexual liberty crushing religious liberty and are a direct existential threat to Christian colleges, attempting to force them to embrace the LGBT agenda, even if it contradicts sincerely held religious beliefs and rights of conscience. The NCLP is actively involved with a broad coalition of California and national organizations working to stop AB 1888 and SB 1146.  NCLP Chief Counsel Dean Broyles testified against SB 1146 at the Senate Judiciary Committee in Sacramento on April 19, 2016.

Passive Acceptance of Evil Is Not a Christian Family Value

FRM Monsters

There is an epic war of the ages between darkness and light raging all around us, yet most Christians are content to have a picnic next to the battlefield.

When I first learned about the surreal scene of hundreds of citizens strolling into the countryside to observe a civil war battle near Washington, D.C., I thought “How odd, how strange! Why would anyone want to watch a battle in which they were not engaged?” Now, I understand that this bizarre visage is a rather apt yet tragic symbol of American Christianity today.

There is a very real war of good versus evil being fought in our midst, both spiritual and physical, but we are largely content to sit out the conflict on the sidelines. We should rather to be trained for warfare, arrayed in our armor, standing firm on the field of battle, engaged with our enemy, and advancing against the very gates of hell-but we are not (See Ephesians 6:10-20).

Why not? Well, for the most part, our Christian leaders have not effectively trained us for war. And far too many of us are distracted and ensnared by the worship of a multitude of our American idols-comfort, success, and popularity, to list a few, rather than Christ. We are trained to be passive sheep, lazily grazing on the sidelines, selfishly waiting for heaven to land on earth. Most of us do not know the Bible well enough or have a comprehensive biblical worldview that informs and motivates proactive engagement. And, even if we know what we ought to do, we are not motivated to obey-because it is hard. And “hard” requires sweat, blood, tears and we would rather not sacrifice, bleed, or cry. It is a lot easier to be distracted by the latest Walking Dead episode than fighting real spiritual zombies.

Then, there is the enormous obstacle of desperately wanting people to like us (fear of man) that causes us to stand frozen still when God-warfare opportunities arise.  If we loved and feared God more, we would not shrink back, but would be willing to fight the good fight.

As Charles Spurgeon asked, “Wouldst thou be a feather-bed warrior, instead of bearing the rough fight of love?” Too many of us Christians are content to be arm-chair prophets and feather-bed warriors. As such, we have little to no power or impact on the raging battle at hand. But authentic biblical love is not passive and disengaged when evil rears its ugly head; it is active and engaged with truth, love and all of the weapons of our warfare!

Passive acceptance of evil is actually more of a Buddhist or Hindu value, rather than a biblically Christian aspiration. These Eastern faiths were formed to try to answer the question of how to cope with the problem of human suffering. Their answer was to essentially ignore it and escape it, by putting on blinders to reality, checking out, and by going within for “truth”-a profoundly hollow exercise. The world can appear to be a much safer place when you close your eyes, cover your ears, and harden your heart.

As believers, we are not supposed to escape from evil and suffering but we are rather to escape to evil and suffering-we are to proactively engage and overcome evil with good. I submit that when American Christians are passive in the presence of evil, we are not behaving as authentic robust biblical Christians, but as passive and selfish spiritual weaklings. The sad result is that we end up compromising, capitulating, and even assimilating to the darkness, rather than exposing it, opposing it, fighting it, and destroying it. This weakness it not irrelevant, but has serious negative consequences for our culture and the future of our children and grandchildren.

Authentic biblical Christianity is not passive. The Lord said, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams”(I Samuel 15:22).  We should hate what our Father hates and love what our father loves-and do something about it. And James admonishes us “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” (James 1:22).  Jesus still admonishes us today to deny ourselves, pick up our crosses, and follow Him (Matthew 16:24).

God will hold us morally accountable not only for what we have done (sins of omission), He will also hold us accountable for what we have failed to do (sins of omission).  One of my heroes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who literally gave his life to stop evil in his generation said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil; God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” The famous Christian British parliamentarian Edmund Burke wrote, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

As we are surrounded by evil, now is the time for good men and good women to do something. When we see evil we must boldly speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). When confronted by darkness we must act. We must never passively allow evil to triumph in our land, in our churches, or in our homes.

If you think you are not strong enough on your own to fight the good fight of faith, you are right! But you are not alone! God is with you! “For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him” (II Chronicles 16:9). Step out in faith onto the battlefield and God will meet you there and He will empower you with strength, wisdom, and courage.

There’s a war raging! It is time for fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ to wake up and engage!  Now is the time to work and to fight for His Kingdom and His glory. We can rest in heaven. We fight not out of hate, but motivated by God’s holy-love, passion and power of our Father, who first loved us.

For now, let’s get out of our feather-beds, put on our armor, grab our weapons, and get our butts out on the battlefield! Prepare yourself for war, and fight in faith with the confidence that God wins in the end and we triumph with Him. And someday, though perhaps wounded, scarred, exhausted, and spent from battling many dark foes, you will understand and experience with joy the pleasure of your Father because you have fought a good fight, you will have finished your course, and there is laid up for you a crown of righteousness that does not fade. And on that day, you will hear those truly awesome words, “Well done, my good and faithful servant,” followed by the biggest party the universe has ever known!

The Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates: Why Federal and State Authorities Ought to Ignore Same-Sex Marriage.

newsphotos-supremecourt-100614

What should a biblical Christian do when the State commands that which God forbids or forbids that which God commands? Having recently written about principled Christian disobedience (PCCD), we now turn to the doctrine of lesser magistrates for some guidance in this present darkness where, increasingly, good is called “evil,” and evil is called “good.” I humbly submit that we have a duty to obey God rather than man.

Relying on scripture, the protestant reformers developed a political theory to address how Christians may appropriately respond when faced with the tyranny of a rogue emperor or despotic king.  A “lesser magistrate” is a lower government authority, relative to the king or other ultimate authority, charged with guarding the God-given liberties of the people under his care.  The concept here is that the lesser magistrate is imbued with the responsibility and authority to shield citizens by resisting, and when necessary, rebelling against the tyranny of a higher authority.

John Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that while individual Christians are generally commanded to submit to ruling authorities (See Romans 13:1-6), “popular magistrates” have “been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings”  when higher authority exceeds its limits and issues decrees that are against God’s instructions. The Lutheran Magdeburg Confession of 1550, argued that “subordinate powers” in a state, faced with a scenario where the “supreme power” is working to destroy true religion, may exceed non-cooperation with the supreme power and actually help the faithful to resist.

John Locke, a committed Christian, explicitly wrote in his Two Treatise on Government that the people had a right of revolution as a check on statist tyranny.  Sir William Blackstone, the eminent English jurist, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England were studied by many of our founders including Thomas Jefferson, wrote “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.” As the Declaration of Independence in 1776 expressed it, natural law taught that the people were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and could alter or abolish government when the State becomes “destructive” of those rights. Thus, the authority of the lesser magistrate (i.e. colonial governments) to resist tyranny and the power of the people themselves to rise up in revolution when their inalienable rights are trampled by despotic supreme rulers, were the twin philosophical foundations that merged in the American Revolution.

And, just when you may think that the spirit of 1776 is dead and buried, some thought leaders have begun to roar like bold lions against the megalomaniacal tyranny of the freedom-pilfering U.S. Supreme Court.  Earlier this month, a document was crafted and signed by more than 60 constitutional attorneys and legal experts, including Robert George (Princeton University), John Eastman (Fowler School of Law, Chapman University),  Jeffrey Ventrella (Alliance Defending Freedom, Sr. Counsel), and Steven D. Smith (University of San Diego School of Law).

Steven Smith, with whom I participated in a panel discussion regarding religious liberty in the public square in 2014 at USD, and the other signatories, confirmed the line of reasoning embodied in the article I wrote last month titled The Constitution is the Law of the Land, Not Same-Sex Marriage.  After confirming that the U.S. Constitution does not give the federal judiciary the power to redefine marriage, the scholars urged government officials to refuse to acknowledge or enforce Obergefell v. Hodges.  In other words, they are urging lesser magistrates to declare Obergefell a legal nullity and stand against the federal court’s constitutionally abusive power grab:

“Any decision…lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.

Therefore….We call on all federal and state officeholders: To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case. To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions. To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.”

Last month, Tennessee legislators introduced a bill seeking to nullify Obergefell, declaring that marriage between one man and one woman “remains the law in Tennessee, regardless of any court decision to the contrary. Any court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges, is unauthoritative, void and of no effect.”  The bill instructs that the state attorney general “shall defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit regarding the official’s recognition of natural marriage.”

By making these courageous stands in the face of strong cultural headwinds, the Tennessee lawmakers and legal scholars do not advocate general legal anarchy; rather they are actually affirming the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.  They have issued a clarion call to all magistrates, both state and federal, to interpose themselves as a buffer between a lawless U.S. Supreme Court, on one hand, and the states and citizens that Obergefell profoundly negatively impacts, on the other. When Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis refused to same-sex “marriage” licenses, I believe that she was exercising principled Christian Civil Disobedience (PCCD) and was acting in the tradition of the doctrine of lesser magistrates, attempting to shield citizens from Obergefell.

This is critically important because if the Obergefell ruling stands, it will decimate the right of the states and we the people to act democratically to define marriage, and by extension place any meaningful limits on absolutist supreme federal power. And, it destroys the right of individuals and religious organizations to freely live, act, and speak according to the dictates of their conscience.  The right to vote and religious freedom are fundamentally important civil liberties we simply cannot afford to lose in America.

Federal lawsuit filed in San Diego to stop California pregnancy care center “Bully” law AB 775 that coerces conscience violating speech.

Baby

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & POLICY NEWS RELEASE

October 13, 2015– FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT NCLP MEDIA RELATIONS: (760) 747- 4529, x103

SAN DIEGO, CA—Today a federal lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court challenging California Assembly Bill 775, the Reproductive FACT Act (“Act’). The Act forces California’s pregnancy care centers (“PCC’s”) to express government sanctioned speech that conflicts with and undermines PCC’s life-affirming beliefs and messages.

AB 775 passed the legislature on September 3, 2015 and was signed into law by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. on October 9, 2015. Plaintiffs are the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), the Pregnancy Care Clinic located in El Cajon, and the Fallbrook Pregnancy Resource Center. Named defendants include California Governor Edmund D. Brown, Jr., Attorney General Kamala Harris, co-sponsor of the legislation, San Diego County Counsel Thomas Montgomery, and El Cajon City Attorney Morgan Foley in their official capacities.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against the Act because it compels plaintiffs’ speech in violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, is impermissibly vague under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, violates the Free Exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and transgresses the Coats-Snow Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 238n, a federal statute protecting licensed health care entities from being required to refer for abortion or make arrangements for such referrals.

The PCC’s are represented by The National Center for Law & Policy’s (NCLP) Dean Broyles and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys Matt Bowman, David J. Hacker, Kevin Theriot, and Elissa Graves. Anne O’Connor of National Institute of Family Life and Life Advocates (NIFLA) completes the legal team representing the plaintiffs.

Sponsored by NARAL and supported by Planned Parenthood, the Act unfairly targets California’s life affirming PCC’s with coerced speech designed to steer women away from PCC’s and towards abortion providers. The Act forces medical PCC’s to refer women elsewhere for free or low cost abortions. Non-medical PCC’s must, in very large, bold, conspicuous print, both at the clinic and in all advertising, notify women that they are not medically licensed. Violation of the law would lead to financially burdensome fines.

“Pregnancy care centers provide valuable resources and services to women facing unplanned pregnancies, giving them meaningful life-affirming alternatives to abortion, like adoption,” declared Dean Broyles. “I am honored to be a part of the legal team challenging this egregious and unjust law that violates the freedom of conscience, religious freedom, and the freedom of speech. If not stopped, the Act will lead to more unnecessary death and dismemberment of children.”

“Planned Parenthood and NARAL are cheerleaders for abortion,” continued Broyles. “The transparent goal of AB 775 is to increase the number of infant deaths in California by, now with the force of law, diverting women away from PCC’s to Planned Parenthood facilities and other abortuaries where death is aggressively promoted, babies are killed, dismembered, and their body parts sold for profit. This gruesome inhumanity and callousness has been on full display recently as Planned Parenthood doctors and others have been caught on tape operating grotesque baby chop shops, casually discussing trafficking in children’s body parts while crunching on salad and sipping Chardonnay, reducing human flesh to a highly profitable commodity.”

“Planned Parenthood and their allies have a clear conflict of interest as they stand to significantly profit from the Act,” added Broyles. “Laws similar to AB 775, coercing commercial speech, have already been successfully challenged and defeated in New York, Texas, and Maryland. Our legal team will work very hard to ensure that AB 775 experiences the same fate here in California.”

Please address media inquiries to The National Center for Law & Policy. The National Center for Law & Policy is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of religious freedom, the affirmation of life, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Please visit our website at www.nclplaw.org.

For further comment, please contact The National Center for Law & Policy at 760-747-4529 x103 or dbroyles@nclplaw.org.

The Constitution Is the Law of the Land, Not Same-sex Marriage.

newsphotos-wethepeople-09.11.15-630x330

In recent months, confused politicians and pundits alike have been mindlessly parroting phrases like “it’s the law of the land” and “it’s settled law” when discussing Justice Kennedy’s same-sex “marriage” opinion (Obergefell v. Hodges).  This is typically followed by advice along the lines that public servants like Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis and the rest of us should just “get over it,” submit, and move on to dealing with other more important issues.  Are they right?  Is same-sex “marriage” now the law of the land?  Not even close!  As Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out in his Obergefell dissent, “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

As we appropriately celebrate Constitution Day this month, regardless of what their personal feeling about marriage’s definition are, I strongly suggest the talking heads at CNN and Fox News actually read the Constitution and learn what it means.  If the U.S. Constitution is to mean anything and retain any legitimate authority, its meaning must be fixed and objective, uninfluenced by the shifting emotions and biases of judges.  The Constitution is easily the most brilliant political document in the history of mankind.  And nowhere in its text are the elite lawyers sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s bench delegated the unfettered discretion to unilaterally amend it by fabricating and announcing new “constitutional rights.”  We the people have not designated them as America’s enlightened cultural oracles, nor endowed them with a mystical pagan power to speak for the gods and “evolve” our society according to their personal notions of the public good, proclaiming their subjective social sophistry “constitutional.”

“This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land….” (Art. 6, clause 2), not the activist progressive personal opinions of judges!  Marbury vs. Madison granted the Supreme Court the power of “judicial review.”  However, the Constitution does not grant the judiciary the unfettered authority to make up the Constitution as they go along.  In fact, the only truly “settled law” here is the actual objective text of the United States’ Constitution, not the personal subjective thoughts and feelings of elitist lawyers, no matter how cleverly or melodramatically expressed.  It has taken us more than 200 years, but I fear we have foolishly traded the tyranny of King George for the tyranny of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the federal judiciary, whose judges are supposed to only interpret and apply the law, not create it out of whole cloth!  The only way the U.S. Constitution can be legitimately changed is by the amendment process spelled out in Article V.  Amendment by any other means, including flowery “liberty” encrusted legalese, is despotic usurpation and a fraud on the American people.  We the people must rise up, declare our faux emperors have no robes, and put an end to the high court’s naked charade.  The Constitution is not a “living, breathing” thing that should be shaped and morphed by the “opinions” of the court.  It is actually quite dead, chiseled in stone until properly amended.  And if someone doesn’t like the U.S. Constitution or wants to expand its protections and rights to new groups, amend it legitimately!  Otherwise, shut up and live with it.  Article III does not delegate to enlightened progressive jurists the unchecked authority to tyrannically impose their distorted vision of utopia on the states and the American people.

In fact, constitutionally, marriage is solely a state issue.  The definition or regulation of marriage is not a federal issue, period.  It is not one of its “limited enumerated powers” (See Art. 1 § 8) and as the 10th Amendment explains, the rights not delegated to the federal government are retained by the states and by the people.  And, regarding the definition of marriage, more that 50 million voters in more than thirty states recently voted to retain the traditional man-woman only definition.  Both Kentucky and California, for example still have man-woman only marriage on the books, as do many other states.  But that didn’t stop the U.S. Supreme Court from bulldozing over the Constitution, the will of the people, and 5,000 years of recorded history!

As a nation of laws, not men, we have committed by the social compact we call the U.S. Constitution to respect the words written therein as our ultimate guide, rather than the transient feelings, biases, and proclivities of individual men and women.  The Supreme Court has proven again and again that it is far from infallible.  Indeed, the divided (5-4) opinion in Obergefell “redefining” marriage is not a shred more legitimately “the law of the land” than have been the many other opinions without a constitutional basis throughout U.S. history.  Examples include Dred Scott (1858) (denying personhood and citizenship to African Americans) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (affirming racial segregation).  Indeed, it was the promise of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and as confirmed by the 14th Amendment, that led to correcting these grave errors committed by none other than the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868 to address the civil rights of recently freed slaves, to give them legal “due process” protections and “equal rights” under the law.  This was indeed a very good thing to do.  But the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the definition of marriage or redefining marriage.  But that didn’t stop Justice Kennedy from casting aside any notion of judicial restraint and, based very loosely on court precedents (not constitutional texts), proceeding to super-legislatively enacting his unprecedented and dangerous grand social experiment.  Kennedy’s ad hoc legal recipe was quite bizarre.  A dash of equal-protection-ish emotion, a pinch of fundamental rights-ish feelings, and voila!  We have a new right!

However, when the Supremes act despotically on their own prerogative, outside of the authority and beyond the boundaries of the text of the Constitution, they act as rogue social activists, unlawfully “amending” the constitution.  In doing so, they unilaterally infuse divisive and profoundly destructive weakness into fabric of our nation including our federal system of government.  This weakness undermines the legitimate power of the federal government, the authority of states, and the sovereignty of “we the people.”  Ultimately, rather the consolidating their limited power of judicial review, the court foolishly undermines the very foundation of its authority, causing citizens to appropriately despise and disparage its usurpation of the peoples’ power and our civil rights, including our right to cast meaningful votes in elections.

Thomas Jefferson, early on, understood the danger of ceding unquestioned authority to the federal judiciary and was deeply concerned:  “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so.  They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps …. their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.  The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”  In accord, Abraham Lincoln, who as President appropriately criticized and ignored Dredd Scott, declared, “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

In sum, the “right” to same-sex marriage is no more constitutionally sound or morally right than the right to kill babies in the womb (Roe v. Wade) and will prove to be even more culturally divisive.  Neither is it any more constitutionally authoritative than the dark Dred Scott decision.  Abraham Lincoln was perfectly right to ignore Supreme Court sophistry then.  And the pundits on CNN and Fox News, as well as State and local officials like Kim Davis should give no quarter or credence to the personal opinions of five attorneys in Washington D.C. who acted illegitimately in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Let me be clear.  I am not advocating general lawlessness or anarchy here; I am only advocating employing peaceful civil disobedience to oppose an unjust and unconstitutional ruling, and faithfulness to the higher law—the U.S. Constitution.

By illegitimately fabricating a new “right” and coercively imposing it on the states and “we the people,” the court has usurped its legitimate jurisdiction, has acted despotically and, quite frankly, must be ignored.  State governors, legislators, local mayors, sheriffs and other public officials should be standing up against federal judicial usurpation and tyranny by telling the U.S. Supreme Court that they will neither acknowledge, nor follow, nor enforce the high court’s specious redefinition of marriage.  The duty of lesser magistrates to uphold and defend the Constitution requires them to protect us from an out-of-control unconstitutional judiciary.

Whatever its source, within or without, we must vigilantly oppose tyranny and stand for freedom whenever despotism threatens America.  We owe it to our children and grandchildren.