The Church Cannot Impact the Culture If We Conform to Rather Than Confront Sin

Corinth (Greece), is the place of judgment where the apostle Paul stood trial 2,000 years ago.  It’s from this very city that Paul preached the Gospel without shame.  Paul spoke of how Christ was crucified for our sins—and the people were transformed.

Ancient Corinth was a city known for its debauchery, drunkenness, and prostitution.  The city was so full of sin that there was a term to “Corinthianize,” which meant to live in drunken stupor.  Into this mess walked a tent maker named Paul, who changed everything when he planted the church.

It says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-20, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived.  Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

He was describing Corinth and its culture.  Paul loved the people enough to tell them the truth and wasn’t afraid to confront sin using the power of the Gospel in love.  1 Corinthians 1:18 says, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

What was the result?  The Corinthian church exploded.  Prostitutes became believers, and idolaters became worshippers.

What’s the parallel today?  When the church looks like the culture and doesn’t call sin “sin,” the culture wins.  Corinth was corrupt, and the Gospel conquered.

Today, the world is corrupted by sin, but the Gospel still conquers.  Paul was arrested and brought before the Roman proconsul Gallio for persuading men to worship God contrary to Mosaic law.  Gallio tossed the case, effectively making Christianity legal throughout the empire.

What the enemy meant for evil, God used for good.

One of the most beloved scriptures in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 13:4-6: “Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth.”

Be encouraged that the same Holy Spirit that transformed Corinth can transform you or anyone who needs the love and hope of Jesus today.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Trans Instructor at OKU is Fired for Flunking Student’s Viral Bible-based Essay on Gender

A transgender graduate instructor at the University of Oklahoma was fired after she failed a conservative student’s Bible-based essay response to an article on gender stereotypes.

Samantha Fulnecky, a 20-year-old junior, penned the provocative essay in late November and presented a faith-fueled argument against the liberal belief in multiple genders — though she neglected to formally cite the Bible.

The psychology course’s instructor, graduate student Mel Curth, who uses “she/they” pronouns, was officially removed from her position following widespread backlash and an investigation into Fulnecky’s religious discrimination claims, according to a statement Oklahoma University posted on Monday.

“Based on an examination of the graduate teaching assistant’s own statements related to this matter, it was determined that the graduate teaching assistant was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper. The graduate teaching assistant will no longer have instructional duties at the university,” the school wrote in a statement.

Curth was originally placed on leave after Fulnecky’s essay went viral and the university had already ruled that the failed essay would not impact Fulnecky’s final grade in the course in early December.

The assignment asked students to write a 650-word response to an academic article examining whether conformity to gender norms was associated with popularity or bullying among middle school students.

In the essay, Fulnecky argues that she doesn’t believe that there are more than two genders because “that is how God made us.”

“Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth,” Fulnecky wrote.

“I live my life based on this truth and firmly believe that there would be less gender issues and insecurities in children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord,” she added.

In her feedback to the student, Curth said that she neglected to address the prompt and relied more on “personal ideology” than “empirical evidence.”

She also said that Fulnecky’s assertions were “at times offensive.”

“To call an entire group of people ‘demonic’ is highly offensive, especially a minoritized population,” Curth wrote, before noting the slew of contradictions in Fulnecky’s essay.

“You can say that strict gender norms don’t create gender stereotypes, but that isn’t true by definition of what a stereotype is.  Please note that acknowledging gender stereotypes does not immediately denote a negative connotation, a nuance this article discusses,” she added.

Ryan Walters, the conservative Oklahoma state schools superintendent who left his post in September, celebrated Fulnecky as “an American hero” for tackling “the war on Christianity.”

Oklahoma state Rep. Gabe Woolley (R-98th Dist.) also presented Fulnecky with a “citation of recognition” from his office.

“This was the right decision.  As I said from the beginning, this individual should never have been employed at a public university — particularly in a human sciences role — when he rejects the fundamental biological reality that there are two genders,” Woolley wrote in a scathing response to Curth’s removal.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Federal Judge Strikes Down CA’s Policies Hiding Gender Switches from Parents

Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California entered a permanent injunction on December 22 that bars officials from enforcing the policies that prevent parents from learning when their children switch genders.

“The State’s desire to protect vulnerable children from harassment and discrimination is laudable,” Benitez wrote in a 52-page decision.

But, he said, “the parental exclusion policies create a trifecta of harm: they harm the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse.”

“[The policies] harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Benitez wrote.

“And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.”

Among the policies are rules prohibiting teachers from telling parents when their children begin going by a different name and gender and forcing teachers to use those new names and pronouns when parents are not around.

Lawyers for the state said the policies were part of providing a safe learning environment and making sure that children “can learn without fear of being outed to their parents before they are ready.”

That interest is too broad and not narrowly tailored to respect parental rights, the judge said.

“In articulating their interest, the State Defendants completely ignore the fact that parents of students possess a free exercise right to direct a child’s religious teaching,” he said.

The permanent injunction includes language that bars any employee in CA’s education system from “misleading the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school, whether by: (i) directly lying to the parent; (ii) preventing the parent from accessing educational records of the child; or (iii) using a different set of preferred pronouns/names when speaking with the parents than is being used at school.”

Attorneys for the Thomas More Society, who are representing teachers in the case, celebrated the ruling.

“The Court’s comprehensive ruling—granting summary judgment on all claims—protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense,” Paul Jonna, special counsel at the society, said in a statement.

“With this decisive ruling from Judge Benitez, all state and local school officials that mandate gender secrecy policies should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences.”

The office of CA Attorney General Rob Bonta has filed an application to stay the injunction.

“We believe that the district court misapplied the law and that the decision will ultimately be reversed on appeal,” it said in a statement.  “We are committed to securing school environments that allow transgender students to safely participate as their authentic selves while recognizing the important role that parents play in students’ lives.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Demise of Religion Among Democrats

The educational shift in the Democratic coalition toward more college-educated voters and fewer working-class ones has been well documented, most notably in the 2023 book Where Have All the Democrats Gone?, along with attendant policy shifts toward the cultural and social preferences of the “Brahmin Left.”  Book authors John B. Judis and TLP’s Ruy Teixeira explained the schism as follows:

On one side of the divide are the great post-industrial metro centers like the Bay Area, Atlanta, Austin, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, New York, and Seattle.  These are areas that benefited from the boom in computer technology and high finance.  These areas are heavily populated by college-educated professionals, but also by low-skilled immigrants who clean the buildings, mow the lawns, and take care of the children and the aged. The professionals, who set the political agenda for these areas, welcome legal and illegal immigrants; they want guns off the street; they see trade not as a threat to jobs but as a source of less expensive goods; they worry that climate change will destroy the planet; and, among the young, they are engaged in a quest for new identities and sexual lifestyles.  Most of them are Democrats.

On the other side of the divide are the small towns and midsize cities that have depended on manufacturing, mining, and farming.  Some of these places have prospered from newly discovered oil and gas deposits, but many are towns and cities like Muncie, Indiana; Mansfield, Ohio; and Dundalk, Maryland, that have lost jobs when firms moved abroad or closed-up shops in the face of foreign competition.  The workers and small businesspeople in these towns and cities want the border closed to illegal immigrants, whom they see as a burden to their taxes and a threat to their jobs; they want to keep their guns as a way to protect their homes and family; they fly the American flag in front of their house; they go to or went to church; they oppose abortion; some may be leery of gay marriage, although that is changing; many of them or members of their family served in the military; they have no idea what most of the initials in LGBTQIA+ stand for.  Most of them are now Republicans, and many are former working-class Democrats.

As noted by John and Ruy, coinciding with the educational shift in the party’s coalition was the rapid decline of religious affiliation and religiosity among Democrats.  The Pew Research Center compiled a nice time series chart to show the dramatic decrease in Christian affiliation among Democrats coupled with a sharp increase in the percentage of religiously unaffiliated “nones”—atheists, agnostics, and those with no religious tradition.

Although the rise of religious “nones” has occurred nationally, the share among Democratic voters more than doubled from 2008 to 2023—from less than one-fifth of Democrats to nearly four in ten—while the percentage of Christians in the Democratic coalition dropped by 20 points.  Over this same period there was a slight increase in “nones” within the Republican coalition but only a 5-point decline in Christians.  More than eight in ten Republicans identified as Christian in 2023.

Ryan Burge and other social scientists call the wide differential between Democrats and Republicans based on belief, religious attendance, and religious identity “The God Gap”:

When it comes to belief, the trend lines are clear on this point—it’s really in 2010 and beyond when the gaps between Democrats and Republicans explode.  The gap between the share of each party that held to an atheist/agnostic belief was small—never more than five points.  But within a decade it had nearly tripled.  Now, about 21 percent of Democrats don’t believe in God, compared to 8 percent of Republicans.

Why does this trend matter in politics?  Because the values, beliefs, morals, and attitudes of increasingly secular Democratic elites are at odds with many other Americans who remain religious (mainly Christian) in some capacity or were shaped by religion earlier in life.

On the hot-button issue of gender identity, for example, nearly six in ten religiously unaffiliated voters say that greater social acceptance of people who are transgender (“that is, people who identify as a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth”) is a change for the better versus less than one-third of religiously affiliated voters who feel similarly.  On immigration, the pattern is different than you might imagine when listening to some activists quoting the Pope: those with low religiosity are far more accepting of rising immigration than are those with high religiosity.  The pattern is the same on the basic issue of the role of government.  Those with low levels of religiosity are much more supportive of an active role for government in aiding those in need than are those with high religiosity.

You can see the problem for Democrats.  Since more than two-thirds of U.S. voters overall remain Christian, the increasingly non-Christian and secular Democratic Party remains out of touch with a huge chunk of Americans.

No one can make the Democrats be more religious, but Democratic leaders and voters could certainly be more welcoming of the faithful and more accepting of their different cultural and social views.  There used to be serious effort put into this religious work prior to the rise of Barack Obama.  In the early aughts, the so-called progressive movement spent a decent amount of time and money trying to organize and appeal to both mainline and evangelical Protestants and social justice-oriented and more traditional Catholics, along with both Jewish and Muslim Americans.

But those days are over, replaced by the increasingly zealot-like demands of secular non-profits and democratic socialist ideological movements that decry religious adherents as misguided or worse—“white Christian nationalists.”  Democrats not that long ago talked earnestly about faith-based concerns for the poor, the stability of families and communities, and religious tolerance but soon moved on to more strident leftist activism on racial and gender issues, climate change, and anti-Israel agitation.  In doing so, they also lost a lot of working-class, rural, and minority voters and gained more geographically concentrated non-religious voters living in big cities.  This tradeoff was bad electorally and bad for the country’s pluralistic cohesion.

If Democrats want to rebuild their majoritarian electoral coalition and better represent the values and desires of most Americans, they could start by rediscovering their religious and faith-based roots—or at least stop being so hostile to them.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

NY Times Joins War on Homeschooling

Allowing parents to educate their own children at home puts them at risk of all sorts of problems and abuses without massive state controls and “oversight,” declared an anti-homeschooling activist this week in the establishment mouthpiece of record.  Home education is now firmly in the crosshairs of the educational totalitarians amid a push to create a police state.

The December 14 New York Times (NYT) piece, headlined “Home-Schooled Kids Are Not All Right,” calls for massive new government controls over homeschool families.  It comes just weeks after the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released a shocking report demanding such regulation worldwide under the guise of “human rights.”

The NYT opinion essay was written by Stefan Merrill Block, who was promoting his forthcoming memoir “Homeschooled.”  It uses an emotionally charged memoir of an unconventional and harmful home-schooling experience — his mom was extremely weird — to argue for sweeping federal oversight of all home education, nationwide.

The author recasts parental discretion and even worldview formation as abusive.  “The choice to isolate a child from peers and outsiders seems to me plainly abusive,” says Block.  “I would also characterize as abuse a parent’s decision to … indoctrinate a child into one mind-set or ideology without the possibility of other perspectives.”

Home education, family autonomy, and parental rights, meanwhile, are portrayed as a dangerous failure of the state to oversee everything.  “Our home-school had fallen into a newly legislated invisible space, where a child could easily vanish from public view,” continued Block.  “The country has passively endorsed a nationwide system of blind spots.”

Block portrays the state as the ultimate authority, arguing that parents cannot be trusted with their children absent draconian government supervision.  He calls for “an authority outside the home” to protect children from their parents.  And he makes the case that all decent people would want benevolent bureaucrats checking in on families.

The call for unconstitutional national restrictions, meanwhile, is clear and unambiguous. “To truly protect home-schooled children, we must put in place common-sense laws nationwide,” Block argues. “A good starting point would be … requiring parents to register their home-schooled child with the state.”

To avoid sounding silly as millions of highly educated homeschooled graduates make their mark on the world, Block acknowledges “most home-schooling parents do not abuse or neglect their children.”  Still, he repeatedly portrays parental authority itself — particularly when exercised outside state control — as inherently dangerous, abusive, and suspect.

Critics lambasted the piece and the arguments made in it.  Dr. Brian Ray, president of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), is the top researcher and academic focused on home education in the world.  After reading the NYT opinion piece, he systematically dismantled the arguments in response to questions from The Newman Report. 

“Stefan Merrill Block’s opinion is an anecdotal story meant to tug at emotional heart strings for philosophical and political purposes,” explained Dr. Ray, who has studied home education for decades. “He wants the government to control private homeschool education with hopes that it will indoctrinate students in his worldview and reduce harm by parents to zero.”

Of course, Block did not provide any empirical evidence to show there is a significant problem for the government to address. Instead, his argument “operates from the philosophical assumption that children belong to the state and if only the state could intervene in all families’ lives, then all children would be safe from any alleged or real harm,” Ray said.

“All parents are assumed guilty until they provide evidence that they are not,” he continued.  “Block wants to reverse American law and liberty so that parents and families are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.”  On top of that, government schools were never created to be social workers or police agencies, but allegedly to educate, Ray added, further undermining Block’s argument.

Responding to Block’s claim that everyone should support his ideas, Dr. Ray noted that America has always operated on the notion that parents are to be trusted unless and until shown otherwise.  Only if a parent harms a child is the state allowed to intervene. “We do not begin by invading the privacy of every home and family and put the burden of proof on them,” he said.

The reason so many ordinary Americans disagree with Block’s assumptions is that they do not believe in statism or fascism, Ray explained.  As such, they do not wish to see the government invading bedrooms, living rooms, family homes, and children’s bodies and minds under the guise of “protection,” the researcher argued.

The data also undermines Block’s argument.  An estimated 5.7 million children in government schools will be sexually maltreated by staff before they graduate, according to data compiled by researcher Charol Shakeshaft.  Imagine if every one of those victims wrote a column in newspapers arguing for more government oversight of teachers.  It would never end.

On the education front, the picture is dire too, with government data showing only around one third of children in public schools are even “proficient” in the core subjects.  How a government that cannot educate even the children already under its control is supposed to oversee and improve education provided by parents is not clear.

Homeschoolers do much better on average anyway, even when parents do not have a high-school diploma, the research shows.  This is true on social and emotional metrics and socialization as well, the growing body of research into home education reveals.

Meanwhile, studies show children in government schools are at higher or the same risk of abuse and neglect as homeschoolers.  “We already have laws for child abuse and neglect; use them,” Ray said. “There is no empirical evidence that homeschooling is bad for children overall; no evidence there is a problem that the government should or could solve.”

“You cannot stomp out all bad-but-not-illegal behavior of public school, private school, or homeschool parents with more laws,” he said.  “Trying to use the civil government to control all behaviors and how we should raise our children before an illegal or blatantly harmful act is committed would turn us into a police state, and none of us wants that.”

“If the author were to apply his same dream for the control of government and his worldview ruling Americans’ lives and reducing harm to children, he would have to call for the abolition of current public schools, then start over with a dystopian set of state agencies and random monthly police and social worker visits into every home in the US that houses minors,” Dr. Ray said.  “This is not America.”

In the end, Block’s argument is that government — not parents — should control what children learn, with whom they associate, and what tests they must take to ensure compliance with government or the powered elite.  But in a free society, government cannot and should not seek to stomp out all childrearing that Block disagrees with.

The NYT attack, republished by other major newspapers across the country, is part of a coordinated assault.  From the UNESCO report demanding government control over home education and the efforts of Harvard law Professor Elizabeth Bartholet to ban it, to European media anti-homeschooling propaganda and government attacks, this is just the start.

Ultimately, home education appears to be emerging as a major threat not just to government indoctrination programs, but to totalitarian agendas everywhere.  The more children receive an amazing education from their parents, the more obvious it becomes that the “public education” system is dumbing down and brainwashing the population.

This battle is about much more than home education.  It is, at its core, about the future of society and fundamental, God-given rights.  Will parents retain the right and responsibility to educate and raise the children God entrusted them with, or will the state usurp that too?  Will parents determine what the next generation learns, or will an all-powerful state shape the hearts and minds of future voters?

In this battle, a free society hangs in the balance.  Parents should respond accordingly.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Embryo Destruction Surpasses Abortion as the Leading Cause of Death in USA

For years now, the leading cause of death in the United States has been abortion.  Of course, it’s not reported like that—if you look up “leading cause of death,” you’ll read that it’s heart disease (680,981 lives lost in 2023), followed by cancer (613,352) and then unintentional injuries (222,698).  But that’s not actually true, considering that unborn people are indeed persons and abortion takes around a million lives each year here in the US (1,037,000 in 2023).

But, according to an analysis of new data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), abortion is no longer the leading cause of death because the number of deaths of embryos as part of the typical IVF (in vitro fertilization) process now tops the staggering number of lives lost to abortion.

As more couples tragically struggle with infertility, the demand for IVF has increased. Reportedly, “in 2023, there were 432,641 IVF cycles at 371 reporting clinics, but only 95,860 babies were born.” When the numbers are broken down, this means in just one year, “an estimated 1,946,884 embryos did not survive to be implanted, and another 1,759,664 were either frozen, destroyed, donated to research, or released for embryo adoption.”

That’s a staggering number of babies, many of whom were intentionally destroyed. Yes, embryos are persons.  Everything that made you “you,” a person made in the image of God, was present right from fertilization—nothing new was added.  And, of course, a human embryo can’t be anything but a human! “Embryo” just refers to a specific developmental milestone in a person’s life.  But why are so many destroyed?

Well, as these breakdowns from the companies themselves show, IVF cycles create a large number of embryos, and these “embryos [are] graded and labeled during testing, and those not deemed healthy enough [are] automatically destroyed.”  It’s eugenics—filtering out and destroying those deemed “not good enough” to be born.

IVF Attrition Example (Step-by-Step)

Scenario: 19 eggs retrieved

15 mature eggs (after retrieval)

12 fertilized embryos (after fertilization)

6 blastocysts (after blastulation)

3 normal embryos (after PGT-A testing)

With three normal embryos, chances of at least one successful pregnancy are about 95%!

Sample IVF “Funnel”

15 Follicles in both ovaries at time of retrieval

14 Eggs retrieved from follicles

13 Mature eggs

10 Mature eggs fertilized with sperm

8 Embryos that develop to day 3

7 Embryos that develop to blastocyst stage

3 Embryos chromosomally “normal” after PGT testing

2 Embryos implant in the uterus

1 Live birth

Live Action breaks down what these charts mean:

Based on these charts, there is an average of 10-12 embryos created per IVF cycle, but fertility businesses often list anywhere from seven embryos up to as many as 17 per cycle.  Using a conservative nine embryos as the average number created per cycle, at 432,641 cycles, that totals about 3,893,769 embryos created via IVF in 2023 alone.  Yet only 95,860 babies were born.

Here’s how those numbers break down.  Up to half of the original 3,893,769, likely did not survive beyond the next two stages: the blastocyst stage and the genetic testing stage …

That’s about 1,946,884 embryos who died or were deliberately killed without being given a chance to be implanted.

Of the remaining estimate of 1,946,884, SART states that 91,360 were automatically “banked” for “future use,” as was the parents’ plan when they began the process.  We also know that after being graded, labeled, selected, and transferred, only 95,860 survived to birth.

That leaves 1,759,664 human embryos unaccounted for.  They survived to the blastocyst stage and passed genetic testing, but they were then either miscarried, destroyed, donated to researchers (and ultimately destroyed), released for embryo adoption (just 1-6%), or are frozen indefinitely.  The data don’t tell us, but we can estimate that at least 1.9 million died before even making it to the implantation or freezing stage of the IVF process, and another 1.7 million are not statistically accounted for.

That’s horrifying.  The sheer number of persons destroyed in the typical IVF process highlights the commodification of life, where babies are created only to be destroyed if they aren’t “good enough.” But who defines “good enough”?

And, according to another news report, some of those “unaccounted for” persons may end up as jewelry!  Yes, you read that right—jewelry!  A UK-based company “crafts modern heirloom jewelry for parents who have undergone IVF but can no longer store their unused embryos or feel uncertain about donation.”  Hailed as a “gentler way to [honor] what [they] created,” parents are offered their choice of rings, pendants, bracelets, and charms encasing the embryos they decided to destroy!  Human life becomes nothing more than a macabre decoration.

Christians must speak out against the intentional killing of babies, whether those babies are forming in the womb or in a petri dish.  Each individual embryo is a person made in the image of God, fearfully and wonderfully knit together by him and deserving of life. They are not a commodity to be kept or discarded at the whim of the parents or a technician in a lab.

Psalm 139:13–16 reads, “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb.  I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well.  My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.  Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.  And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Canadian Gov’t Demonizes the Bible As “Hateful” Revoking Long-Standing Religious Exemption

Despite outcry from Church leaders and Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs), the Canadian Parliament last week passed an alarming amendment to remove long-standing religious protections from the country’s hate speech laws.

The ruling Liberal Party joined the Bloc Québécois in voting to approve the amendment, which removed text from the Canadian Criminal Code regarding hate crimes.  The now-deleted text provided a religious exemption: “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”

Opposition voices expressed urgent concern that the passing of Bill C-9 would open the door for the government to trample on religious freedom and even criminalize portions of the Bible as hate speech.

The intentions of Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Government in making these changes were put on full display after MP Marc Miller publicly chastised the Bible.  While claiming himself to be a “man of faith,” Miller insisted that multiple books contained in God’s Word are “homophobic,” stating that sharing certain passages should be considered “hate speech” under the law.  “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans – there’s other passages – there is clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals … I mean, clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke or be a defense,” Miller stated at a Justice Committee meeting on Bill C-9.

Conservative MPs were quick to condemn Miller’s statements, explaining that his call to criminalize Biblical texts—simply because the Liberal Party finds them offensive—showcases that the “devil is in the details” of C-9.

Instead of condemning Miller’s remarks, the Liberal government showed its approval by promoting him to the position of Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture.

Another MP sparked outrage for his disturbing argument in favor of Bill C-9.  Martin Champoux from Bloc Québécois stated that the religious exemption must be removed from the hate speech, presenting a fictitious example of a Pastor “hatefully” interpreting the Bible and telling his congregation to “cut the throats of homosexuals.”  Champoux’s remarks were rightfully denounced by conservatives as a “disgusting misrepresentation” of both the Bible and Christian belief.

A Response to Antisemitism?

Bill C-9, among other things, was framed by Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party as a way of combating the out-of-control antisemitism within the nation.  Muslims perpetrate a vast majority of the Jew-hatred emerging in the West, and it can be easily agreed that Islam cannot be a legal cloak for targeting Jews.  For that reason, many Jewish groups were eager to lend support.  However, Bill C-9’s supposed benefits to countering Islamic hatred and calls for violence against Jews are far outweighed by the danger it poses to religious freedom as a whole, especially given the brazen hostility of Liberals toward Christians and Jews.

The Jewish organizations applauding the move have failed to recognize that the change would also place Jewish freedom in the crosshairs of the government, a concern further illuminated by the Liberal Party’s open contempt for the Jewish State of Israel.

Roman Baber, a Jewish MP from the Conservative Party, saw through the ruse, emphasizing the Liberal Government’s near-decade-long refusal to pass legislation targeting the real problem.  “Almost every witness we heard from at the justice committee said that the Liberals missed the point and that what they should have done is criminalize the willful promotion of terrorism.  That is what we are seeing on Canada’s streets,” he underscored.  “During the previous Conservative government, we had a law that criminalized the glorification of terrorism, but Justin Trudeau and his minions, in 2017, repealed Bill C-51.  Instead, what we have going on right now is folks in my riding dressing like Yahya Sinwar, the worst murderer of Jews since the Holocaust, who is being glorified and celebrated.”  “If they actually want to do something about this, if they want to do something about what is happening on Canada’s streets, what is happening in my riding, which is one of the most Jewish ridings in the country, they should pass my PMB, Bill C-257, and criminalize the willful promotion of terrorism, terrorist activity, or terrorist groups,” Baber urged.

The MP went on to powerfully use his own story of growing up in the USSR to highlight the danger of the legislation.  “I first realized that I was of the Jewish faith when I was four or five,” he began.  “It was on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.  I walked into my grandparents’ bedroom, as I was raised by my grandparents, and I saw my grandpa reading a Siddur, a Jewish prayer book.  This would have been in 1984 or 1985.  Even then, despite Gorbachev’s glasnost and, arguably, perestroika, if a Soviet resident was found with a Jewish prayer book, they could potentially be looking at a labor camp for three to five years.  That was one of my first memories.” 

“I cannot believe that I am sitting in the House right now after hearing the member, who is the Canadian identity and culture minister, essentially suggest that reciting parts of the Bible could somehow be criminalized, almost like a strict liability offence.  I cannot fathom that,” Baber stressed.  “It is as if we were back in the U.S.S.R.”

“I had a considerable discussion with my friend about it the other week, about how we were taught that we should avoid certain topics.  Certain topics were taboo.  We were not allowed to discuss the West. We were not allowed to use the word ‘America.’  We were not allowed to use the word ‘Israel.’  We were not allowed to point out that there is no bread, jeans, or eggs in the store.  That was because the only religion allowed was Communism,” he explained.  “When my friend from Bowmanville—Oshawa North talks about Liberal colonialism, that is exactly what it is.  It is Liberal dictatorship of our freedom of thought.  There are no other thoughts allowed, other than Liberal thought.”

The Response of Churches

Pastors in both Canada and the United States have decried the passing of Bill C-9.

“Who would have thought liberal Canada would become a state-run society governing the thoughts, ideas, and intents of people’s hearts?”  Minnesota Pastor Mark Henry remarked during his Sunday service.  “Do you realize that if you read Romans chapter 1, where it talks about homosexuality, or Genesis 19, that for each of those offenses, you would get charged right now a $50,000 fine in Canada?”

Warning that America is on the same trajectory as its neighbor to the north, Henry explained the contents of the Bill and played Marc Miller’s anti-Bible statements for his congregation.  The pastor also led his church in a prayer for Canada.  “By God’s grace, it hasn’t happened here, but that’s the trajectory we’re on,” he cautioned.  “And so, we need to pray for Canada, and we need to pray for the pastors who are there.”  Henry described the influx of texts he received from Canadian pastors following Bill C-9’s approval, with many reiterating their determination not to allow the move to stifle their preaching of God’s Word.

Justin Hickey, pastor of Calvary Chapel London in Ontario, Canada, discussed the passing of the amendment, imploring Canadian Christians to recognize the Bill as part of a broader spiritual battle.  “[Bill C-9] really is a needless thing for them to do because it doesn’t actually protect any Canadians,” he noted.  “All it does is present an opportunity for the enemies of the church, and, for that matter, any faith, to try to weaponize the ambiguity that is within this new amendment … It doesn’t do much for safety.  It does everything in its power to limit and restrict free speech.”

“What does this mean for us?” Hickey continued.  “What are we going to do differently? Well, nothing. We’re not going to change just because our government is like the shifting sands that Jesus told us about.  We’re not going to shift with them.  We’re going to remain unmoved.  Built on the rock, so when the storms rage, and they blow against our house, it will not be shaken.  Nothing is going to change.”

“Remember, people are coming to know the Lord.  Bible sales are up.  Church attendance is up.  So don’t think for a moment that this is just a coincidence.  Whenever the Lord is moving, you need to anticipate a counterpunch,” the pastor highlighted.  “I mean, the Lord’s got the devil on the ropes.  You don’t think he’s going to try to throw a left hook?  And here’s the left hook.”

Hickey reminded his congregation that persecution often has the opposite effect of what Satan intends, resulting in a strengthened, rather than weakened, church.  “This could be the best thing that has ever happened to the church.  It could be,” he explained. “Remember in the early church, when Satan tried to deal with them, and he tried to stomp out their fire?  When he began to stomp out the fire in Jerusalem, it didn’t put it out.  What did it do?  It spread the embers of that fire around the whole world. I mean, it did the exact opposite of what the devil wanted to do.  Whenever persecution comes, the church always grows.”

“We need to remind ourselves of what Jesus said, ‘I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,’” Hickey emphasized.  “We need to keep pushing forward. We need to keep advancing, proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.  Folks, we’re in a spiritual battle, and we cannot forget that.  You can see Satan in his scheme.”

Hickey also noted that Bill C-9 is simply the latest attack on Biblical truth in the nation, pointing to the overreaching COVID regulations and passing of the “conversion therapy ban.”

The Criminalization of Biblical Sexuality

As with many nations, Church services were halted during the COVID pandemic. However, Canada raised eyebrows internationally for the severe enforcement of the regulation, which included the jailing of multiple pastors across the nation.

Then in 2022, the Canadian Parliament unanimously passed a “Conversion therapy ban,” a law which effectively criminalized the discussion or preaching of Biblical sexuality. God’s design for marriage to be between one man and one woman was demonized in the law as a “myth.”

The Sunday after the law went into effect, thousands of pastors—in Canada and the United States—participated in “Biblical Sexuality Sunday,” conducting messages teaching congregations what the Bible says about marriage, sexuality, and gender—sermons which were now a criminal offence under the law.

“Biblical Sexuality Sunday” was spearheaded by James Coates, the first Pastor to be arrested under the strict COVID regulations in 2021.  Harbinger’s Daily also played a role, reaching out to pastors in Canada to inform them about the Conversion therapy ban and its ramifications, as well as the pastoral response through “Biblical Sexuality Sunday.”

The Island nation of Malta was the first to enact a “conversion therapy ban” in 2016; since then, multiple nations have adopted similar bans, modeling them after the law in Malta.  Each nation insisted during the debate process that church leaders were exaggerating the danger the law poses to religious liberty, asserting that the ban would not be used to criminalize the Bible or Christian speech.  That claim was shattered in 2022 when Matthew Grech was criminally charged under Malta’s “conversion therapy” law for publicly sharing his testimony in an interview, recounting how he left the homosexual lifestyle to follow Christ.  His legal battle remains ongoing, with prosecutors continuing to pursue fines and jail time for Grech’s offense—sharing his story of transformation through the Gospel.

Grech’s case demonstrates the danger to religious liberty posed by “conversion therapy bans” and Canada’s latest revision to “hate speech” laws.  While these changes to the criminal code may remain dormant for years, not being used to target the church, at any point in time, they can suddenly be mobilized to their full extent to attack the freedoms of Christians.

Pastor Hickey addressed that worry among many Christians following the passing of Bill C-9, encouraging the church to continue forward with strength.  “There’s nothing wrong with wanting a peaceful life.  We should be praying for that, but we weren’t promised that,” he underscored.  “In fact, quite the opposite has been promised to us if we want to live godly lives.  So for some, the news is devastating, especially when we’ve been praying against it, signing petitions, calling or writing our MPs.  It’s only natural to feel defeated in the moment. But this isn’t the time to stop praying.  In fact, it’s time to press in.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Trump Restricts Visas for Nigerians Linked to Anti-Christian Violence, Persecution

In response to mass killings and violent attacks against Christians in Nigeria, the U.S. State Department announced that the United States will restrict visas for Nigerians who have participated in or supported violations of religious freedom, a restriction that could also apply to family members in some cases.

The department announced the policy in a Wednesday statement amid escalating attacks against Nigerian Christians by extremist groups and armed militias, who are responsible for thousands of murders, abduction and widespread destruction of places of worship.

A new policy under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act will allow the federal government to “restrict visa issuance to individuals who have directed, authorized, significantly supported, participated in, or carried out violations of religious freedom and, where appropriate, their immediate family members.”

The provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the U.S. Secretary of State the authority to deny a visa or entry into the United States to a foreign national if the individual’s presence in the country could potentially lead to adverse foreign policy consequences.

“The United States is taking decisive action in response to the atrocities and violence against Christians in Nigeria and around the world,” said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a Wednesday statement posted on X.

He vowed the agency will restrict U.S. visas for those who “knowingly direct, authorize, fund, support, or carry out violations of religious freedom,” a policy that applies not only to the Nigerian government but also to other governments and individuals that violate people’s religious freedom.

The actions come after President Donald Trump threatened potential military action last month to stop the attacks against Christian communities in Nigeria and “to wipe out the Islamic terrorists.”  The Trump administration has pressed the Nigerian government to work with them to deter violent religious persecution.

Last month, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth met with Nigerian National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu, emphasizing “the need for Nigeria to demonstrate commitment and take both urgent and enduring action to stop violence against Christians.”  Hegseth also expressed a desire to work with Nigerian authorities “to deter and degrade terrorists that threaten the United States,” according to a Pentagon statement.

Analysts who spoke with The Associated Press reported at the time that limited, high-profile U.S. airstrikes are unlikely to reverse the security concerns and instability in Nigeria.

The Nigerian government has said in response to concerns about violent persecution that the conflict is not inherently religious, claiming that it stems from decades-old farmer-herder clashes.

Nigeria’s government has also pushed back against the claim that what's happening to Christian communities in the Middle Belt states may meet the standard for religious persecution and genocide. Advocates have also accused the Nigerian government of failing to protect its citizens from radicalized groups and rampant violence that has left millions displaced.

The situation in Nigeria has continued to draw widespread attention, including from celebrities like rapper Nicki Minaj, who, in an X post last month, expressed gratitude for living in a country with religious freedom.

“No group should ever be persecuted for practicing their religion.  We don’t have to share the same beliefs in order for us to respect each other,” the rapper declared.

“Numerous countries all around the world are being affected by this horror and it’s dangerous to pretend we don't notice,” she continued.  “Thank you to The President and his team for taking this seriously.  God bless every persecuted Christian.  Let's remember to lift them up in prayer.”

Earlier this year, the global Christian persecution watchdog Open Doors placed Nigeria in the seventh spot on its 2025 World Watch List of countries where Christians are most persecuted. 

During the WWL 2025 reporting period (Oct. 1, 2023, through Sept. 30, 2024), researchers calculated, based on conservative estimates, that 3,100 Christians had been killed and 2,830 had been abducted. Regarding instances of sexual assault and physical and mental abuse, the report authors rounded the figures to 1,000 and 10,000, respectively.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Liberals Gain Support for ‘Hate Speech’ Bill Targeting Bible Passages Against Homosexuality

A Liberal government bill to criminalize parts of the Bible dealing with homosexuality under Canada’s new “hate speech” laws looks closer to becoming reality after gaining the support of the Bloc Québécois party when a religious exception was removed.

The National Post reported that the Bloc Québécois are now backing the hate-speech Bill C-9 after the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney agreed to take away a religious exception.

Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, as reported by LifeSiteNews, has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a government insider revealed that the Liberal government plans to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate-speech laws by modifying a bill.  This would affect passages of the Bible dealing with homosexuality.

A recent media report states that the Carney Liberals and the separatist Bloc Québécois want to amend Bill C-9, which would “criminalize sections of the Bible, Quran, Torah, and other sacred texts,” Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre noted yesterday on X.

Both the Liberals and the Bloc are on board to support the removal of a religious exemption in Canada’s Criminal Code for the bill.

Last week, Canadian Justice Minister Sean Fraser was rather mum on the deal made with the Bloc, which now says the deal is on thin ice due to canceled justice committee meetings.  Fraser said that it is his “priority” to see “this bill adopted,” but admitted it will need the support of other parties.  “That’s going to require that we collaborate with different parties who have different points of view,” he said.

However, it appears that such meetings will take place this week, but Conservative Party MPs have promised to fight the removal of the religious exception.

Liberal MP Marc Miller had said earlier in the year that certain passages of the Bible are “hateful” because of what it says about homosexuality, and those who recite the passages should be jailed.  As reported by LifeSiteNews, he was recently appointed as a government minister by Carney.

Recently, Canadian pro-life Conservative MP Jamil Jivani warned the Liberal government is targeting Christians and people of other faiths with a bill that would criminalize quoting parts of the Bible.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis blasted the Carney Liberals’ federal plan to criminalize parts of the Bible as an attack on “Christians,” warning it sets a “dangerous precedent” for Canadian society.

In response, the party launched a petition over fear that religious texts could be criminalized.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

HHS Investigating Claims School Vaccinated Student Despite Religious Exemption

Federal health officials have launched an investigation into a complaint alleging that an unidentified school located in the Midwestern United States disregarded a valid religious exemption and administered a vaccine to a student without parental consent.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the investigation on December 3 after officials said school authorities administered a vaccine to a student despite having a religious exemption submitted under a state law.

According to HHS, the vaccine was supplied through the federal Vaccines for Children program, which is administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Entities participating in the program, including schools and medical practices, must adhere to state laws on religious and other exemptions from compulsory vaccination requirements, according to HHS.

The HHS’s Office for Civil Rights will determine whether the school violated those obligations.  Neither the school’s name nor the student’s identity was disclosed.

In a video statement announcing the investigation, HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy said any HHS-backed grant recipient must comply with federal and state laws protecting parental rights.  “When any institution — school or doctor’s office or clinic — disregards religious exemptions, it doesn’t just break trust, it also breaks law,” Kennedy said.  “It fractures the sacred bond between families and people entrusted with their children’s care.  We are not going to tolerate it.”

Kennedy urged parents to educate themselves on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and their right to access their children’s health records in order to make more informed health decisions for their children.  “HIPAA establishes that right of access.”  Kennedy went on to say, “If you have the legal authority to make decisions for your child, then you should have the right to see their records.  No delays, no secrets, and no excuses.”

The probe marks the latest in a string of recent HHS actions on religious exemptions.

HHS’s Office for Civil Rights issued a letter in September to notify state awardees of the Vaccines for Children Program (VCP) that any participating immunization programs and program-registered providers “must respect state religious and conscience exemptions from vaccine mandates.”

In August, the Office for Civil Rights cautioned West Virginia that it risked forfeiting $1.37 billion in federal health funding unless state health departments — which participate in the Vaccines for Children program — comply with religious freedom statutes, including exemptions from childhood vaccinations.

The recent disputes over religious exemptions have also been at the center of several federal cases, including a Colorado medical school’s $10.3 million settlement last week with 18 plaintiffs who were denied accommodations for COVID-19 vaccine mandates on faith-based grounds.  The University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine agreed to the payout — covering damages, tuition refunds and $1 million in attorney fees — after a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that the institution violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights through denials motivated by “religious animus.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Pastor Outraged After Friend Jailed for Refusing to Apologize Over Drag Queen Story Hour Protest

A Canadian pastor expressed outrage to The Christian Post (CP) regarding a fellow pastor who was arrested this week for not apologizing for protesting drag queen story hours with children at a public library two years ago.

“These people are sick in the head.  They’re demon-possessed.  They’re wicked, evil minions of Satan,” Pastor Artur Pawlowski told CP on last week from a court in Calgary, Alberta, where he was showing support for his friend, Pastor Derek Reimer, as he faced a bail hearing.

Reimer was arrested in Calgary on after he refused a court order to write and sign an apology to the library manager of Calgary Public Library regarding his 2023 protest at a “Reading with Royalty” event, which featured male drag queens reading to children, according to the Western Standard.  Reimer told the Canadian outlet that he felt he had nothing to apologize for.

Reimer was arrested multiple times in 2023 and spent Easter weekend of that year behind bars because of his protests, which prompted widespread attention and condemnation from figures such as Samaritan’s Purse CEO Franklin Graham.  He was accused at the time of violating a municipal bylaw passed that year prohibiting protests within 100 meters of a recreation facility or library entrance.

The Calgary Police Service confirmed to CP that Reimer was in custody after being arrested “for probation issued warrants for breach of a Conditional Sentence Order from a criminal harassment charge.”  Footage of Reimer’s arrest went viral on social media, showing him asking officers if they were “the feelings police” before they handcuffed him.

Pawlowski, who made headlines himself when he was repeatedly arrested during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns for keeping his church open in defiance of a court order, said Reimer’s treatment is a continuation of what he experienced from Canadian authorities.

He accused them of trying to instill fear in others who might dare to stand up against wickedness from the government.

“I was the canary in the coal mine, and that’s why I was so vocal,” said Pawlowski, who has alleged he was abused by prison authorities, shoved in a small cage and placed in a psychiatric ward when he was jailed for 51 days in 2022 after delivering a sermon to truckers blocking the U.S.-Canada border in protest of federal vaccine mandates.

“I was yelling and screaming, ‘Listen, they’re doing this to me.  Be sure of it: they’re going to come after you, as well.’ ”

Pawlowski, who expressed defiance when he was ordered by a provincial judge in 2021 to recite a script parroting the prevailing opinion of medical “experts” whenever he spoke of COVID-19 and vaccines, said the apology demanded from Reimer by the court is another example of compelled speech in Canada.

Pawlowski noted the issue has become pervasive in Canada and highlighted Bill C-9, which would remove a religious exemption from the country’s hate speech law.  Christian groups have warned the legislation will pave the way for prosecutions of biblical teachings on marriage, gender and sexuality.

“Bill C-9 criminalizes the Bible ... especially the portion of the Bible that references sexual perversion and homosexuality, and Derek Reimer is another one that they’re using as an example to scare others,” he said.

Pawlowski also placed Reimer’s situation in the wider context of what he described as a push throughout the Western world for sexual immorality and debauching children, which he said is overly demonic and echoes the tactics of the Soviet regime he grew up under in communist Poland.

“Those who control the young people control what is going to happen in 10, 15, 20 years,” he said, citing a quote often attributed to Adolf Hitler that “he alone who owns the youth, gains the future.”

“The globalists are pushing this agenda globally, and that’s why you see this all over the Western world, because it’s an agenda.  These people are forwarding a sick, demonic, from-the-pit-of-hell agenda,” he said.

Pawlowski asserted that figures like Reimer are a threat to such plans, and that those intent on implementing them are frightened of such people.

“The worst thing for those tyrants — wannabe pharaohs, as I call them — is exposure,” he said.  “If you keep your mouth shut, you’re OK.  The moment you expose them, suddenly they’re terrified.  They’re afraid, because truth sets the captives free.  It’s all about the truth.”

“They hate the truth.  And who hates the truth?  Who calls the truth hate?  Those who hate the truth.  To them, it’s hateful.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Over 90% of College Students Polled Think ‘Words Can Be Violence’

An overwhelming majority of college students believe that “words can be violence,” according to a new poll that found undergraduates are more reluctant to express their views on campus following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. 

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression released a new report last week examining students’ views on free speech following the assassination of the TPUSA founder during a speech at Utah Valley University in September.  The survey was conducted from October 3-31, sampling 2,028 undergraduates nationwide and 204 students at Utah Valley University.

The survey asked students whether they felt more or less comfortable engaging in a variety of activities following Kirk’s September 10 assassination.  A majority of Utah Valley University students felt a “great deal” or “slightly” less comfortable expressing their views on “a controversial political topic during an in class discussion” (68%), expressing their views on “a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a campus common space” (64%), and expressing controversial political opinions to classmates on social media (65%).

Similarly, a majority of Utah Valley University students described themselves as a “great deal” or “slightly” less comfortable attending public events on campus (65%), attending controversial public events on campus (72%), “hosting events on campus that some people may consider controversial” (72%), and attending class on campus (54%).

While students who do not attend Utah Valley University were less concerned about engaging in these activities, 47% of respondents reported being a “great deal” or “slightly” less comfortable attending controversial public events on campus since the Kirk shooting.  Similar levels of concern were reported about expressing controversial political opinions to classmates on social media (46%), and “hosting events on campus that some people may consider controversial” (45%).

Smaller shares of undergraduates nationwide expressed concern about sharing their “views on a controversial political topic during an in class discussion” (41%), expressing their “views on a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space” (39%), attending public events on campus (31%) and going to class on campus (16%).

Twenty-two percent of respondents maintained that a statement declaring that “words can be violence” describes their thoughts “completely,” while 25% stated that it “mostly” reflects their views, 28% insisted that it “somewhat” describes their thoughts, and 15% told pollsters that it “slightly” reflects their views.  The remaining 9% completely disagreed with the notion that “words can be violence,” meaning that 91% of those surveyed expressed some degree of agreement with the statement.

“When people start thinking that words can be violence, violence becomes an acceptable response to words,” said FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens in a statement reacting to the report.  “Even after the murder of Charlie Kirk at a speaking event, college students think that someone’s words can be a threat.  This is antithetical to a free and open society, where words are the best alternative to political violence.”

Seventy-one percent of students indicated that they opposed allowing a speaker who believes “transgender people have a mental disorder” on campus.  This marks a slight decline from the 74% of students who said the same in the spring of 2025.  Similarly, the share of students opposed to allowing a speaker who believes “abortion should be completely illegal” on campus dropped from 60% to 58%.

The percentage of students opposed to letting a speaker who believes “Black Lives Matter is a hate group” on campus decreased from 76% to 73%.  In both the spring of 2025 and the fall of 2025, 62% of students opposed allowing a speaker who thinks that “the Catholic Church is a pedophilic institution” on campus.

Conversely, the percentage of students opposed to allowing a speaker who thinks “the police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan” on campus rose from 62% in the spring of 2025 to 65% in the fall of 2025.  The share of students opposed to letting a speaker who believes “children should be able to transition without parental consent” increased from 51% in the spring of 2025 to 56% in the fall of 2025.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel