WA School Says “Yes” to Student Anti-ICE Protests, But “No” to a Classmate Sharing the Gospel

A middle school vice principal in the state of Washington (WA) pulled a student out of her math class in February and told her that she was not permitted to distribute Gospel tracts at school.

The student, having faced similar pushback when she was in second grade in the same school district, asked a perceptive question: Why were other students allowed to express their viewpoints but she was not?  The vice principal replied that students may share opinions but not religious beliefs.

That distinction is constitutionally impermissible, says a demand letter sent to the school district by attorneys with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) on the student’s behalf.

During the conversation with the student, the vice principal said it was permissible for the school to allow students to leave campus during school hours to participate in anti-ICE protests, but she maintained that the student’s distribution of religious literature was not permitted.

“The District’s own officials have articulated a policy of viewpoint discrimination with unusual candor,” the ACLJ’s letter states.  “The school has opened a forum for student expression during non-instructional time and has selectively excluded a religious viewpoint from that forum.”

The letter goes on to explain that the First Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court rulings preclude such discrimination against a particular viewpoint.

Back in elementary school, over a two-month period, the student was sent to the principal’s office at least 10 times for witnessing to classmates on the playground.  In addition, school officials began stopping her at the school’s entrance every morning to inspect her backpack and remove any Christian tracts.

The ACLJ sent a demand letter and obtained a signed agreement with the school district that the student could continue to share her faith at school without threat of punishment.

But now, with the district going back on that promise, ACLJ has given school officials a deadline of March 27 to affirm in writing that they “will comply with the requirements of the First Amendment, by permitting [the student] to distribute her religious tracts to her classmates and discuss her faith during non-instructional time, without further interference from school officials.”

 

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

Christian Father Facing Death Penalty After False Blasphemy Charge

Ishtiaq Saleem, a Christian sanitation worker and father from Islamabad, Pakistan, is awaiting a possible death penalty verdict after being accused of sharing material considered blasphemous on social media— a charge he denies.

Authorities in the Pakistani capital arrested Saleem on November 29, 2022, after allegations emerged that he shared online content viewed as offensive to Islam.  He now faces multiple criminal charges under the country’s blasphemy laws and cybercrime legislation— legal provisions that can carry the death penalty if a court finds him guilty.

The case has reached a critical stage after hearings in Saleem’s trial concluded before a special court in Islamabad, while proceedings continue for a co-accused, identified as Muhammad Umair, according to the legal advocacy group ADF International, which is supporting Saleem’s defense through allied lawyers in Pakistan.

A verdict is expected after hearings related to the co-accused are completed.

Saleem, now 34, was 31 at the time of his arrest and has remained in prison while the case moved through the courts.  His bail requests were rejected by lower courts and later by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which also ordered the trial court to expedite proceedings, the advocacy group reports.

Prosecutors charged Saleem under several sections of Pakistan’s criminal law.  These include Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code for intending to outrage religious feelings, Section 295-B for alleged desecration of the Quran and Section 295-C for insulting the Prophet Muhammad— one of the most severe blasphemy provisions because a conviction can carry the death penalty.

Authorities also charged him under Section 298-A of the penal code, which concerns derogatory remarks regarding holy personages, and under Section 11 of Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act of 2016— a law governing cyber offenses that includes provisions related to inciting interfaith hatred.

Saleem has denied the accusations and maintains that he did not download or share any blasphemous content online.

According to ADF International, a network called the “Blasphemy Business Group” fabricates blasphemy accusations to entrap people for blackmail and extortion, and the group is allegedly headed by Rao Abdur Rahim, the lead prosecution counsel in Saleem’s case.

The network allegedly includes lawyers and individuals who coordinate with the cybercrime unit of Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency, the national body responsible for investigating federal offenses, including cybercrime.  Such coordination has enabled cases based on online activity to move into the court system, ADF International said.

Pakistan’s National Commission on Human Rights has reported that more than 450 individuals have been targeted in similar schemes involving fabricated blasphemy accusations.

Blasphemy allegations have long carried significant legal and social consequences in Pakistan, where the relevant sections of the penal code criminalize actions or speech considered insulting to Islam or the Prophet Muhammad.  Convictions under Section 295-C, in particular, can result in the death penalty.

Statistics cited by the Lahore-based Centre for Social Justice indicate that 1,949 blasphemy cases were registered in Pakistan between 1987 and 2021.  The group reported that those accused during that period included 928 Muslims, 643 Ahmadis, 281 Christians and 42 Hindus, along with 55 individuals whose faith was not specified.  The data also show that 84 people accused of blasphemy were killed outside the legal process before courts issued final verdicts.

 

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

The World Is Not Overpopulated

We are in a trend of what can be called “delayed marriages/delayed families.”  The formation of a traditional nuclear family is at an all-time low in American history. Husbands and wives are questioning if they can afford, even with both working, to start a family.  Just a few years ago the American family of the future was likely be “1.8 children and 2 pets.”  Let’s address the common reasons why fewer young people are having large families.

Population fears

Recently, Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, author of the book The Population Bomb, passed away at age 93.  His bestselling book of the ‘70s was filled with doom-and-gloom predictions of mass starvation due to overpopulation.  His work was nothing more than disgusting, unsubstantiated fear-mongering.  The world is not overpopulated — not even close. That is a lie against God and a distortion of the scientific facts.  One tongue-in-cheek but appropriate comment to his obituary read: “Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich is survived by 8,300,678,394 people (134% increase from 1968), with a daily worldwide average calorie intake of 2,800 kcal (a 22% increase).”

Financial fears

Many fear the expense of raising children.  The truth is, Satan hates families and will do everything in his power to prevent or destroy them.  Today’s “needs” were yesterday’s luxuries that many cannot imagine doing without.  Yet they come with a cost that is shrinking families and decreasing fertility.  Thankfully, there are still couples who are committed to raising children to impact the world for Christ. There are increased numbers of stay-at-home moms who refuse to get caught up in the materialism of today’s society. They have chosen a simple, wholesome lifestyle with Christ at the center and are raising a happy children.

Biblical perspective

In Luke 2:24, we read that Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the temple to honor the Jewish law for newborn boys.  They could not afford a lamb to sacrifice, but “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” was an acceptable offering to fulfill the law.  They recognized their financial position and humbly obeyed God’s Word.  So should we.

Make a plan

Accept where you are without comparing yourself to others.  Understanding who you are in Christ will give you the confidence to live “contra mundum.”  The world will tell you everything you “need” to outfit a nursery, how to dress fashionably during pregnancy, where to take a “babymoon,” the best childcare available, and so on — basically telling you how to spend your money (or max out your credit cards). Many projected costs are higher than necessary for those who are consciously dedicated to living on a conservative budget.

Financial preparation is important to prevent stress during and after pregnancy.  It is achievable by sacrificing for the greater good of a family.  Choosing to live modestly does not mean you have to suffer.  It simply means setting boundaries and prioritizing spending.  Refuse to get too comfortable in this world by focusing on eternity, not on earthly desires.  Be creative in finding ways to enjoy living free of financial worry and “keeping up with the Joneses.”  The “Joneses” are probably in debt anyway.

Things to consider:

•     Will both parents work outside the home after children arrive?
•     Can you live on one income now?
•     If working, will you have maternity benefits?  Can your job become remote?
•     Will you need childcare?  If so, in or outside the home?
•     Is your family willing to help?

Begin living on one income while using the other to build emergency savings.  Pay down high-interest debt, like credit card balances.  Create a budget that will enable you to save while simultaneously paying off debt.  Be willing to adjust your lifestyle dramatically.  This will create margin, especially if housing and vehicle expenses can be reduced.  Bump up contributions to your Health Savings Account (HSA) so tax-free dollars can be used for medical expenses.  Don’t forget to give first.

Start buying groceries regularly and cooking at home.  Learn to make freezer meals. These will help once a baby actually arrives.  Family, friends, and YouTube can provide recipes and cooking lessons.

Look for free entertainment without the cost of subscriptions and streaming, which add up over time.

Resist the temptation to hire professional photographers, have elaborate celebrations, or decorate a magazine-worthy nursery.  Learn to be content with simplicity and a life free of financial stress.  Find like-minded friends with whom you can do life.

Sell what you don’t need.  Limit time on social media to avoid impulse spending or the desire for perceived needs.  Save, get good health insurance, and write a will.

If you believe people will offer to have a baby shower for you, begin making a list of true essentials. Don’t spend any money until absolutely necessary.  Instead, ask God to provide.  If and when things are needed, you can borrow from family or friends or shop Facebook Marketplace and thrift stores. Don’t rob yourself of the joy of having your prayers answered by impatiently getting ahead of God.

Reject the nonsense found in The Population Bomb, and renew your mind on God’s truth:

“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.  Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth.  Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!  He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:3–5 ESV).

 

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

CA Governor’s Wife Says Evangelicals “pulling us back as a country”

A newly resurfaced COVID-era interview with the wife of California (CA) Gov. Gavin Newsom has gone viral for her claim that Evangelicals are “pulling us back as a country.”

Jennifer Siebel Newsom, CA’s “first partner,” made the comments in a 2022 interview with former Fox journalist Elex Michaelson in which she advocated for the political left to redefine the traditional meaning of the pro-life movement.  “So many progressives are leaning into redefining what pro-life is really about, and that’s what we’re doing in California,” she said.  “You know, pro-life is about prenatal care and universal preschool and universal after-school and universal healthcare and taking care of foster kids and feeding kids universal meals and childcare.  Like, that’s pro-life.  It’s not about conception.”

Siebel Newsom then took aim at folks on what she called the “far right,” including Christians and conservatives.  “They’re living in this Evangelical, conservative silo that, ultimately, is just pulling us back as a country to a time and a place where we don’t deserve to be and we’re not gonna be,” said Siebel Newsom.  “Because honestly, young women and fathers of daughters are awake now, and they’re woke, and they’re not going to let us go back.”

She went on to express optimism about this shift, stating it filled her with “so much hope” and emphasized CA’s role in the process: “I have so much hope because of that.  And obviously, California has a huge responsibility to lead.”

The resurfaced footage drew criticism from conservative groups like American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which called Siebel Newsom’s comments a “radical attack on Christians.”

Noting that California has the “ACLJ’s largest donor base,” Logan Sekulow, director of media for the ACLJ, wrote, “That means a vast number of Evangelicals and conservatives in that state support our work and oppose the far-left radicalism of the Newsoms.  So, Jennifer is completely out of touch with millions within her own state.”  Sekulow added that although these views might appeal to liberals during the primary, such a political disconnect could spell trouble for a long-rumored plan for Newsom to run for the White House in 2028.  “How will that affect her husband’s eventual presidential bid?”

Siebel Newsom’s official biography on the state website explains her preference for the title “First Partner” over “First Lady” as a deliberate choice intended to send a signal of inclusivity, recognizing that one day there will be a woman or [LGBT] Governor of California, and to elevate the importance of partnership and the need for, and benefits of, a caring, inclusive government.

The resurfaced footage of Siebel Newsom’s views on Evangelicals revived controversy over Gov. Newsom’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, when his administration imposed strict public health restrictions on in-person religious services that drew widespread criticism from churches and led to multiple high-profile lawsuits.

In March 2020, Newsom issued statewide stay-at-home orders that classified houses of worship as non-essential, effectively banning indoor services for churches while allowing certain secular businesses to operate with modifications.

Churches, like South Bay United Pentecostal Church, Harvest Rock Church and Grace Community Church, led by then-Pastor John MacArthur (now deceased), challenged the restrictions as discriminatory, arguing they violated First Amendment rights by treating religious gatherings more harshly than comparable secular activities.

Lower courts initially upheld many of the orders, but the U.S. Supreme Court intervened multiple times, most significantly in February 2021, when the Court struck down CA’s ban on indoor services, allowing limited capacity while prohibiting outright bans.

 

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

WV Senate Stands Up for Kids, Passes Bills to Shield Children from Drag Shows and Transgender Locker Room Exposures

The West Virginia (WV) Senate recently passed two crucial bills: Senate Bill 590 and Senate Bill 1083, to safeguard minors from explicit performances and indecent exposures, drawing outrage from radical LGBTQ activists who claim the measures unfairly target their community.

SB 590, sponsored by Sen. Tom Willis (R), criminalizes “adult cabaret” performances on public property or in view of minors, expressly including female impersonators, aka drag queens.  This includes acts by “topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to the prurient interest.”  Violators will face penalties of up to a $25,000 fine or five years in prison.

During floor debate, Sen. Willis clarified that the bill’s intent will not include harmless plays or concerts. He defined a “go-go dancer” as someone “scantily dressed” performing “erotic” routines, emphasizing that only content exciting “lust or lewdness” would be prohibited.

Sen. Joey Garcia (D), raised concerns about the language, questioning if family-friendly shows like Mrs. Doubtfire or Kinky Boots could be affected.  Supporters countered that the bill’s focus on “prurient interest” ensures it targets only obscene material, not artistic expression.

The bill passed with overwhelming support, 31-2, with only two Democrats voting no.

SB 1083, expands the definition of indecent exposure to include undressing in a locker room not matching one’s biological sex “in a manner likely to cause affront or alarm.”  It also requires sex offender registration for those convicted of exposing themselves to minors and imposes enhanced penalties for repeat offenders.

Originally a bill by Sen. Ryan Weld (R) to update indecent exposure laws, it was amended to address transgender individuals using opposite-sex facilities.  Weld opposed the changes, calling them unconstitutional, but his amendment to remove them was rejected.

The bill passed 32-1.

Predictably, the state’s only LGBTQ organization, “Fairness West Virginia,” went crazy over the legislation.  Executive Director Andrew Schneider blasted the bills as “dangerous,” accusing Senate Republicans of “Trans Derangement Syndrome.”  In a statement, the organization ranted, “Instead of helping the people of McDowell County get clean drinking water, they’re planning to arrest drag queens.  Instead of stopping our schools from closing, they want to lock up innocent transgender people.”  They falsely claimed the bills will label “trans Mountaineers and drag artists as dangerous criminals simply for existing,” ignoring the explicit focus on protecting children from exposure.

Both bills now head to the House of Delegates, where they must pass the Judiciary Committee before a full vote.  If approved, they could land on the governor’s desk before the session ends.

 

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

IN Judge Rules There is a ‘Religious Right’ to Kill Babies in Abortions

A radical Marion, IN, Superior Court judge ruled that the “right” to kill an unborn child is now a protected religious exercise, permanently blocking enforcement of the state’s pro-life protections against a class of plaintiffs who claim their faith requires them to terminate pregnancies.

Superior Court Judge Christina Klineman, a Democrat, granted summary judgment in favor of abortion activists and issued a permanent injunction against Indiana’s abortion law, ruling that the statute conflicts with the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  The decision blocks enforcement of Indiana’s abortion ban for a certified class of plaintiffs and members of the activist group “Hoosier Jews for Choice,” who argued that abortion can be a religious practice.

In the order, the court accepted arguments that abortion may qualify as a form of religious exercise protected by IN’s RFRA if individuals claim their beliefs require terminating a pregnancy.  The ruling states that the plaintiffs believe their religion can require abortion under certain circumstances, including situations involving mental, emotional, or physical wellbeing.

“The organization and its members believe that under Jewish law, an abortion is directed to occur if it is necessary to prevent physical, mental, or emotional harm to a pregnant person, even if there is not a physical health risk that is likely to cause substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” the court wrote.  Judge Klineman concluded that enforcing IN’s abortion restrictions against people who claim such beliefs would “substantially burden” their religious exercise under state law.

As a result, the court ordered that the state cannot enforce the abortion law against these plaintiffs if doing so would violate their claimed religious beliefs.

Klineman wrote:

“Having already found that the Abortion Law and RFRA are in conflict, and that the State has not met its burden of showing a compelling state interest in prohibiting abortions for religious exercise, the court now finds that the Plaintiff’s remedies at law are inadequate and the outright ban of abortions for religious exercise causes irreparable harm.

The court finds that the threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs harm to the Defendants because the Abortion Law already has exceptions and there has been no showing that this limited exception for religious exercise would somehow explode the number of abortions sought in contradiction of their stated interest.

The court finds that there is significant public interest in ensuring the religious freedom of all citizens and the State’s position that religious freedom is somehow less important than other exceptions in the Abortion Law puts the court in an untenable position and finds a permanent injunction the only proper relief.”

IN passed its abortion law in 2022 following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.  The law prohibits most abortions but allows limited exceptions, including:

Cases involving rape or incest during early pregnancy

Situations involving lethal fetal anomalies

Medical emergencies that threaten the life or serious health of the mother

Doctors who violate the law can face criminal penalties and potential loss of their medical licenses.

IN Attorney General Todd Rokita appealed the ruling to a higher court.  “We disagree with the court’s decision and have already appealed,” an office spokesman told Indiana Capital Chronicle.  “As we have with every challenge against our pro-life law, we’ll continue fighting to protect the lives of the unborn.”

The case now heads toward the IN appellate courts, where the controversial decision could ultimately be reviewed by the state’s Supreme Court.

 

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

AL Takes Step to Prevent Church Disruptions

Alabama (AL) House Republicans advanced a new measure meant to deter church disruptions with substantial prison sentences and fines.

The legislation, filed as House Bill 363, comes weeks after left-wing activists invaded a church service in St. Paul, MN, over one of the pastors’ working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  House Bill 363 would charge those who similarly interrupt religious services in AL with up to 10 years in prison and fines of $15,000 or more, according to a report from the Alabama Reflector.

It passed in the Alabama House with a vote of 75 to 27.

“This bill would provide that if an individual enters upon the premises of a church building to intentionally disrupt a worship service by engaging in a riot, unlawful protest, or disorderly conduct, or otherwise engages in the harassment of any other individual in the worship service, the individual would be guilty of the offense of disruption of a worship service,” the legislation said.  “This bill would also provide that if an individual enters upon church property contiguous to where a church worship service is being held with the intent on obstructing the ingress or egress to the property, and obstructs the ingress or egress to the property, the individual would also be guilty of the offense,” it added.

AL State Rep. Greg Barnes (R), defended the bill on the House floor, saying that it “is a religious protection bill that protects all religions, not just churches, synagogues.”  “And that’s a very narrowly tailored, narrowly scoped bill,” he said, per the Alabama Reflector.

But some members of the House Democratic minority contested the bill on the floor.  “I think the absolute worst place that you could take away a person’s right to disagree is in the church.  I don’t understand how you say that,” AL State Rep. Sam Jones (D) said in reaction to the bill.

Alabama State Rep. Chris England (D), even claimed that Jesus Himself would face prison time under the legislation.  “Under this particular piece of legislation, when Jesus went out there and flipped over some tables, he would have been a Class C felon,” he argued.

The bill protects any “bona fide duly constituted religious society or ecclesiastical body of any sect, order, or denomination,” such as churches, mosques, and synagogues, as well as “other religious real property.”

It will now be considered by the AL Senate.

 

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

CO’s Gender Transition Tyranny Regulates Conversations

The medical consensus on gender-transition treatments for minors is shifting.  PTL!  But many state laws are not — and families are paying the price.

Imagine your 14-year-old daughter has been struggling — withdrawn, anxious, overwhelmed by social media.  She comes home one day and tells you she thinks she’s actually a boy.  You love her dearly and want her to get help.  So, you find a licensed therapist who shares your family’s faith, someone your daughter trusts, someone who will listen carefully and take her pain seriously.  In most areas of medicine, that choice — your child, your doctor, your values — belongs to you.  But in states like Colorado (CO), it belongs to the state.

Therapists in CO have only one legally safe response: affirm the transition.  Any other approach — including simply helping your daughter explore her feelings, understand her identity through the lens of her faith, or grow more comfortable with her biological sex — risks a $5,000 fine and the loss of the therapist’s license.  The conversation between the therapist and patient is no longer private.  The state has inserted itself into the room.

This is the reality of bans on “conversion therapy” — found in CO as well as 22 states and the District of Columbia.  This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will decide whether such laws can stand.

Across the U.S. and Europe, medical authorities are urging greater caution.  A growing number of hospitals and health systems are restricting or have discontinued gender-transition procedures for minors, citing legal risks and scientific uncertainty.  Britain’s 2024 Cass Review — the most comprehensive examination of pediatric gender medicine to date — found the evidence supporting medical interventions in minors to be weak and inconclusive, prompting sweeping policy changes.  The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has recommended against gender surgeries on minors, and the American Medical Association has endorsed deferring such interventions to adulthood.

Yet under CO law, licensed therapists may not help minors explore alternatives to gender transition without risking their careers — even as the rest of the medical world pumps the brakes.

The therapist challenging CO, Kaley Chiles of Colorado Springs, is a Christian whose clients often seek her out because of that shared faith.  Many are young people struggling to reconcile feelings of gender confusion with their religious beliefs and family relationships.  These young people and their parents are not asking for a predetermined outcome.  They want help untangling a confusing situation — not a state-mandated conclusion handed down before the first session ends.   “The law basically restricts the speech between me and my client,” Chiles has said.  “If your daughter were to say, I think I am a boy, we can only affirm and validate that and assist with gender transition.”

That isn’t therapy.  That’s ideology with a license.

Supporters of these laws rely heavily on the emotionally charged term “conversion therapy.”  The phrase conjures images of electroshock treatments and coercive programs once used on same-sex-attracted kids.  But as Chiles’s attorneys argued before the SCOTUS, the studies CO cites lump together violent aversive treatments and ordinary talk therapy as if they were the same thing.  They are not, and there is no credible evidence that compassionate, conversational counseling damages children.

Earlier this year, a Westchester County jury awarded $2 million in a malpractice case to Fox Varian, a 22-year-old who underwent a double mastectomy at 16, finding that her psychologist and surgeon had deviated from reasonable standards of care.  Her mother testified at trial that the doctors assured the surgery would improve her daughter’s well-being and suggested that failing to do so would likely drive the child to commit suicide.

Meanwhile, evidence continues to emerge that medical transition does not deliver the psychological benefits often claimed.  A recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services found no reliable evidence that such interventions reduce suicide risk or improve long-term mental health in minors, while documenting serious risks including infertility, cardiovascular complications, and regret. Other research suggests that up to 90% of children who experience gender dysphoria before puberty naturally reconcile with their biological sex if allowed to mature without intervention. 

SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito pressed the point during oral argument, drawing comparisons to other once-dominant medical consensus positions — on forced sterilization or institutionalizing children with Down syndrome — that history has since judged harshly.  CO’s attorney had no good answer.

The constitutional problem is straightforward.  The First Amendment does not permit the government to compel citizens to express ideas they do not believe, and that protection applies with particular force inside the confidential relationship between therapist and patient.  CO is not regulating medical procedures.  It is regulating conversations.

Families facing these challenges want access to counselors who share their values and will speak honestly, without fear of government punishment.  That includes the right of parents to seek care from treating professionals that doesn’t begin with a foregone conclusion.  The Constitution guarantees such freedom.  We will soon learn if the SCOTUS vindicate it.

 

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

SD House Rejects Parental Rights Bill

The Republican-controlled South Dakota (SD) House of Representatives rejected a wide-ranging parental rights bill last week that would have prevented public schools from withholding information about a trans-identified student’s social transition and mental health from their parents, with 30 Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the measure.

The lower chamber rejected Senate Bill 190 in a 35-30 vote after its companion bill, Senate Bill 190, had passed the Senate earlier in the day by a 19-15 vote.

The measure would have amended state law to clarify that government entities “may not substantially burden the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of the parent’s minor child, without demonstrating that the burden imposed on the parent is required by a compelling governmental interest as applied to the parent and the parent’s minor child and is the least restrictive means for furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

The measure would have protected parents’ right to direct the moral and religious training and education of their minor children and instruct employees of the state or its political subdivisions that they cannot “encourage or coerce a minor child to withhold information from the minor child’s parent” and “withhold from a minor child’s parent information that is relevant to the physical, emotional, or mental health of the parent’s minor child.”

The bill would have also prohibited employees of SD and its political subdivisions from seeking to provide any type of surgical procedure, medical examination or mental health treatment to a child without receiving parental consent.  Local school boards would be instructed to develop a process by which parents can review the curriculum at their child’s school and agree to have their children withdrawn from any “specific instruction or presentation,” including lessons on human sexuality.

The legislation would have ordered school boards establish a process for providing consent before “the parent’s minor child may use a name or nickname other than the minor child’s legal name or a derivative or diminutive of the minor child’s legal name.”

School district employees would have been prohibited from withholding information or coercing a child to withhold information from parents about their “purported identification with a gender that corresponds to the minor child’s internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from the biological reality of the minor child’s sex.”

Sioux Falls Republican Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, who voted against the proposal, was among those voicing concern that the legislation could protect abusive parents and criminalize the actions of mandatory reporters, such as teachers and coaches.  “If there’s any doubt in any of our minds that this bill passage would enable a parent to put that abuse on their child, we can’t pass it,” Rehfeldt told the South Dakota Searchlight.

Before the House approved the legislation, an amendment was adopted that sought to ensure that the bill wouldn’t impede child abuse or neglect investigations.  “I just wanted to bring an additional amendment, just further clarifying that this legislation does not impede an investigation into child abuse or neglect,” Republican Rep. Heather Baxter, who introduced the amendment, said, according to KOTA News.

Critics point to a section of the bill that requires “consent before any state agency or political subdivision of this state makes a video or audio recording of the minor child.” Videos may be made without consent only if they are part of a court proceeding, law enforcement investigation, criminal or other investigation, surveillance or a public event where the minor child has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Rep. John Shubeck, R-Beresford, said no exception is given for teachers who lead remote learning or assign video or audio projects.  It also doesn’t exclude coaches who use video to help their players improve.  “It just concerns me that well-meaning teachers will get in trouble,” Shubeck told the Searchlight.  “I like giving the parents the ability to monitor what their kids are being taught, I’m just concerned about myself and others getting inadvertently swept up into breaking the law.”

The attempt to pass Senate Bill 190 comes amid concerns that school districts across the nation have policies in place that allow children to transition socially at school without their parents’ consent, even allowing teachers to hide such information from parents.

Earlier last week, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled against a California policy requiring teachers to withhold information from parents, allowing a federal judge’s injunction against the state’s requirement to take effect after an appeals court put the injunction on hold.

Last year, SCOTUS sided with parents who were prevented by their local Maryland school district from opting their children out of LGBT-related school curriculum.

States that have passed a parents’ bill of rights similar to Senate Bill 190 include Indiana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.

 

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

Number of Americans with Biblical Worldview Remains Low

A recent survey of American adults found that despite a surge of interest in Christianity and church attendance in the months since Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the number of people who adhere to a biblical worldview remains critically low, including just 1% of Gen Z.

Conducted in January by Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center under the guidance of researcher George Barna, the latest installment of the American Worldview Inventory (AWI) asked 2,000 American adults a series of 53 questions to discern if they live consistently with a biblical worldview.

“The survey results indicate that despite the increased attention given to faith matters after the Charlie Kirk murder, and the growth in church attendance and individuals purchasing Bibles immediately after that incident, there is no hint of improvement when it comes to biblical worldview,” the survey said.

The results found that only 4% of Americans overall possess “religious beliefs and worldview-related behaviors ... consistent with biblical principles, beliefs and behavior,” according to a demographic the survey called “Integrated Disciples.”

Ten percent qualified as “Emergent Followers,” defined as those whose biblical worldview is marked by syncretism.  The vast majority — 85% — classified as “World Citizens,” who might have some beliefs and behaviors consistent with a biblical worldview, but overall adhere to something else.  The last category has grown 16 percentage points from the 69% measured in 2020.

Rates were especially low among young people, and the survey found a large age gap among the generations.  Among Gen Z adults, only 1% had a biblical worldview, compared to 2% of millennials, and 7% of Gen X, baby boomers, and those older.

A segment of the survey examined the effect of church attendance on a biblical worldview and found that the rate of “Integrated Disciples” among Evangelical churchgoers has plummeted in recent years, from 21% in 2020 to 11% this year.

Evangelical churchgoers were only modestly more likely to have a biblical worldview compared to those who attend churches that don’t generally believe that Jesus Christ is the only means to salvation or that the Bible is the Word of God and a reliable guide for life.

The survey found that 53% of self-identified Christian respondents classified as “Notional Christians,” which the survey defined as those who do not believe that salvation comes through a personal confession of sin and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior.

The survey also saw a strong correlation between biblical worldview and political orientation, with 12% of political conservatives possessing one, compared to only 1% of moderates and 1% of liberals.  Even among conservatives, the rate has dropped from 16% in 2020.

Among those who identify as LGBT, only one-half of one percent had a biblical worldview, compared to 5% who identify as straight.

Commenting on the results of the AWI 2026 survey, Barna said “the fate of our nation hangs in the balance” and that “the national divide is an indication of the spiritual battle for the soul of America.”

Describing the situation as “urgent,” Barna warned that Americans are losing their historically Christian culture, and that with just 1% of Gen Z exhibiting a biblical worldview, it potentially faces “extinction” if trends are not reversed.  “Make no mistake about it, we are losing American society and all that it has historically represented because we have succumbed to the influence of the culture instead of the exhortations and promises of God,” he said.  “Entertainment and media messages as well as public policies and errant public education have distorted the thinking and behavior of our young people.”

Barna suggested that even though the numbers remain sobering, the fact that they haven’t continued to decline might offer hope that improvement is on the horizon.  “A quarter century ago, 12% of the adult population held a biblical worldview,” he said. “Since then, we have seen a steady reduction in that incidence.  We reached a low point — 4% — in 2023.”  “The fact that we have not plumbed new depths since then hopefully suggests that we have bottomed out and are in line to experience positive growth in biblical thought and action.”

According to recent data from Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study analyzed by Lifeway Research, younger members of Gen Z — those born 2003 to 2007 — report higher levels of religious engagement than slightly older peers born between 1995 and 2002, pointing to a possible shift. Among that group, 61% identify with a religion, 35% pray daily, 37% say religion is very important in their lives and 41% attend services at least monthly.

 

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

Unprecedented Prostitution Proposal in CO Threatens Us All

The state of Colorado (CO) has officially taken the lead in the race among radically progressive states to introduce legislation that would decriminalize prostitution statewide.  This proposal is unprecedented.  No state has ever attempted full statewide decriminalization.  Just as Colorado was the first to legalize the sale of marijuana — ushering in significant cultural and social consequences — they are once again attempting to make history by normalizing another form of moral decline.

While some mistakenly believe prostitution is legal throughout Nevada, that is untrue. Only certain rural counties permit it under strict regulation.  Even the Las Vegas Strip does not allow prostitution, nor even the sale of marijuana.  CO’s proposal goes far beyond anything previously attempted, and to make matters worse, Colorado SB26-097 eliminates municipal opt-out authority, meaning no city or county would be allowed to say “no.”

The bill ensures that operating and advertising a place of prostitution would no longer be illegal or subject to investigation.  Imagine Amsterdam’s Red Light District transplanted into Main Street America.  Under this framework, prostitution storefronts, billboards, and commercial areas could legally appear in communities across CO, openly advertising the sale of human bodies.

In an unsurprising move, the legislation also removes the word “prostitution” from statute entirely, replacing it with the sanitized phrase “commercial sexual activity.”  Language matters.  Redefinition often precedes normalization.

In recent years in CO, statutes have been entirely re-written to reclassify minors as “youth,” subtly reframing children as independent decision-makers rather than individuals in need of parental protection.  Colorado HB19-1120 lowered the age of mental-health consent to 12 years old … the consequences of which a 12-year-old girl, without parental knowledge or consent, transitioned behind their backs.

The most common argument is that prostitution involves “consenting adults.”  But those words deserve strict scrutiny.  Being sold for sex remains being sold for sex … regardless of terminology.  Calling it “commercial sexual activity” does not change its nature.

Is an 18-year-old high-school student with an underdeveloped brain truly consenting?  Is a drug-addicted young woman consenting?  Is a trafficking victim who knows no other life consenting?  Is an emotionally vulnerable adult who believes selling her body is her only option genuinely free?  And what message do we send to today’s children when prostitution storefronts become normalized parts of everyday community life?

At a recent hearing for Colorado HB26-1082, the Children Are Not For Sale Act, legislation aimed at strengthening penalties for child sex trafficking to life in prison.  The bill was killed immediately despite overwhelming testimony highlighting the growing exploitation of minors.  During the hearing, more sympathy appeared directed toward those who might accidentally purchase children for sex than toward the victims themselves.  

It is also important to recognize that this bill does not legalize prostitution through regulation — it decriminalizes it.  Rather than establishing safeguards or accountability, decriminalization risks creating a law-enforcement vacuum.  Without investigative authority, trafficking networks may operate more easily, making it harder to identify and rescue victims, including children.

Scripture warns us plainly: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20).  Senate Bill 26-097 may or may not succeed this legislative session, but proposals like it don’t just disappear.  They return in new forms, spread to other states, and gradually reshape cultural norms.

Christians should recognize this moment for what it is — not merely a political disagreement, but a spiritual battle over the dignity of human beings and the protection of children.  We are called to speak truth, defend the vulnerable, and stand firmly for what is good, even when doing so is unpopular.

The future of our communities and the moral formation of the next generation depends on whether we are willing to do exactly that.

 

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

Police Minimize 3 Christians Murdered in India as Religiously Motive

More than a month after three Christian converts were hacked to death in Odisha state in eastern India, police continue to attribute the triple murder to a land dispute, even as relatives and rights groups point to tensions linked to the family’s recent conversion.

The victims, Jitendra Soren, his wife Malati Soren and their 15-year-old daughter, were attacked inside their home in Nialijharan village in Keonjhar district on January 25, according to the United Kingdom-based advocacy group Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), which tracks religious freedom cases globally.

Giving an account of what happened, CSW said the family had attended a Pentecostal prayer service earlier that day and returned home.  Relatives arrived at the house and accused the couple of practicing black magic, claiming their church attendance had caused illness in a niece.  Jitendra Soren denied the allegation and was pushed to the ground.  As the confrontation escalated, the couple’s daughter intervened to protect her father and was struck with an axe and killed.  Malati Soren was then killed while attempting to save her daughter, and Jitendra Soren was attacked and killed while trying to flee.

Police have reportedly arrested three suspects in connection with the killings and alleged that a long-standing land dispute within the extended family may have contributed to the violence, according to Morning Star News.  The arrested suspects were identified as Laxman Soren, Baidyanath Soren and Sudam Soren.

Officers reached the site the following morning, recovered the bodies and sent them to Anandapur sub-divisional hospital for post-mortem examination before handing them over to relatives, reports Catholic Connect.

The couple’s younger daughter witnessed the attack and escaped, while an elder married daughter and a son who was studying away from home also survived.  Surviving family members later sought shelter with a family friend and reported feeling unsafe in the village.  Suguda Soren, the couple’s surviving son, told CSW tensions had been building since his parents converted to Christianity about a year earlier.  He said relatives and neighbors accused the family of bringing misfortune and illness to the community.

The family had become the third household in the village to convert to Christianity in the past year, according to the U.S.-based persecution watchdog International Christian Concern.  Suguda Soren said relatives had warned the family for weeks to stop attending church or "face death."

The family’s eldest daughter, who follows the Hindu faith, filed the First Information Report— a formal police complaint that triggers a criminal investigation in India.  The document did not include any reference to anti-Christian aggression and treated the case as a land dispute between relatives.

In an op-ed published in UCA News, Christian rights activist John Dayal wrote that the Soren family killings fit a recurring pattern of violence against Christians in Odisha and across India, particularly in tribal regions.  Dayal also wrote that sections of the state’s media have aligned with police and political actors in downplaying or removing possible religious motives in such cases, and said the larger political climate in Odisha, alongside rising anti-Christian violence in states ruled by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, complicates efforts to fully understand the killings.

Advocacy groups say Odisha, particularly tribal, or indigenous, districts such as Keonjhar, has seen increased violence and hostility toward Christians in recent years.  The village lies near areas associated with earlier attacks on Christians, including the killing of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his sons in the same district decades ago.

 

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