The U.S. Constitution Protects Freedom of Religion, Not Freedom from Religion

First Liberty often defends people of faith when their free exercise of religion is attacked. In many of their cases, the hostility comes from opponents who object to seeing a person’s religious faith expressed publicly.  Frequently, they erroneously contend that the First Amendment protects their “freedom from religion.”

Of course, the First Amendment also protects the freedom of speech.  So, following their same logic, that would mean it also protects freedom from speech—so you never have to hear an opinion different from your own.  The First Amendment protects freedom of the press—so does that mean we have freedom from the press, so we never have to see a news story we don’t like?

The same First Amendment that protects a person’s freedom to believe in God and express their faith publicly also protects an atheist’s right to not believe in God and express their beliefs publicly.  That means when an atheist opposes a religious person’s free expression of faith, the atheist is attacking the right that protects their own words at that very moment.  People of faith constantly get criticized when doing observable religious activities outside the walls of a church like praying, baptizing, setting up memorials and monuments, etc.

Nonreligious critics contend that by doing these things in public, people of faith are forcing their beliefs on others.  The critics often say it’s a terrible thing to impose your beliefs on others—but then these same critics do their best to impose that belief on others!  They base it on their supposed “freedom from religion,” which they view as the right to live entirely free from exposure to religious practices and influence in the public square.

When governments decide there’s no power higher than themselves, one authoritarian regime might decide to ban religious practices, while another decides to ban atheism.

Today, there are over a dozen nations worldwide where being an atheist can bring severe punishment, including imprisonment and execution.

America’s Founding Fathers never tried to take away an atheist’s right to believe God doesn’t exist.  America was founded on the cornerstone of religious liberty.  Here’s an example: The same Constitutionally protected right that allowed Bremerton High School Coach Joe Kennedy to pray on the field after games also protected someone else’s right to not pray.  No one was forced to pray who didn’t want to, and nobody was stopped from praying who wanted to pray.

Except, of course, for Joe Kennedy.  He was fired for praying in public; and therefore, supposedly imposing his beliefs on others.  He then had to endure seven years of legal battles before having his constitutional rights affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

America’s Constitution protects freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. Nowhere does the Constitution guarantee the right to be shielded from ever seeing someone exercise their religious beliefs in public.  But it does protect every American’s freedom, including teachers and government workers, to exercise their religious beliefs—freely and publicly—even if other people might happen to see it.

That’s because religious liberty is the freedom that defines America.

 

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

If the Church Will Not Teach the Truth About Israel, Someone Else Will Teach the Next Generation a Lie

There is a spiritual battle raging today over one nation unlike any other in history.  That nation is Israel.  It seems everyone has an opinion about Israel—politicians, journalists, influencers, podcasters, celebrities, and social media personalities.  Sadly, one of the few places where many Christians are not hearing about Israel is from the pulpit.  That silence has come at a tremendous cost.

The issue of Israel has become a dividing line in the Church.  Entire denominations, Bible colleges, seminaries, pastors, and Christian influencers are abandoning the biblical view of Israel and replacing it with theological systems that deny Israel’s future.  As a result, millions of Christians are confused about God’s plan for the Jewish people, while younger generations are increasingly adopting anti-Israel narratives from secular voices rather than biblical truth.

At the heart of the confusion is Replacement Theology.  Replacement Theology teaches that God has permanently rejected Israel as His chosen nation and replaced her with the Church. According to this view, the Church has inherited Israel’s covenants, promises, and prophetic destiny, while the Jewish people forfeited their unique role in God’s redemptive plan by rejecting Jesus as their Messiah.

To reach this conclusion, Replacement Theology must allegorize or spiritualize the plain, literal promises God made to Israel and reinterpret them as promises to the Church.  The Church becomes the “New Israel” or the “True Israel,” while ethnic Israel supposedly no longer has a distinct future in God’s program.

But this is not merely a theological disagreement.  It has had enormous historical consequences.  By teaching that the Jewish people lost their covenant standing before God, Replacement Theology has provided a theological basis for hostility toward the Jews.  It portrays Jewish suffering as evidence of God’s rejection rather than recognizing that God has preserved Israel for her future restoration according to His unconditional promises.

Now, to be clear, many Christians who hold to Replacement Theology are not personally antisemitic.  Many sincerely love Jewish people and desire to see them come to faith in Christ. But the theological system itself is structurally harmful because it denies Israel’s God-given identity, covenant promises, and prophetic future.

Wrong theology always produces wrong thinking—and wrong thinking often produces wrong behavior.  History bears this out.  Throughout much of Christian Europe, this theological framework helped justify discrimination, forced conversions, expulsions, and persecution of the Jewish people.  While the Holocaust was driven primarily by Nazi racial ideology rather than Christian theology, centuries of anti-Jewish teaching influenced by Replacement Theology helped create a culture in which such hatred found fertile soil.

Biblical scholar Thomas Ice rightly observed: “Wherever Replacement Theology has flourished, the Jews have had to run for cover.  Wherever such a view has gone it has always led to anti-Semitism.”

Likewise, Dr. Gary Hedrick writes: “Replacement Theology has provided the basis for all sorts of mischief, persecution, and atrocities against the Jewish people throughout Christian history.”

Ultimately, this debate is about far more than Israel; it is about the character of God.  If God can permanently revoke His unconditional covenants with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the nation of Israel, then His promises are no longer unconditional.  Yet Paul declares that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).  God’s faithfulness to Israel demonstrates His faithfulness to every believer.

Unfortunately, many churches have stopped teaching on Israel altogether.  Whether because of Replacement Theology, the Church Growth Movement, the Seeker-Friendly Movement, the Purpose Driven Movement, or simply the fear of offending people, countless pastors avoid the subject completely. 

When pastors stop teaching, someone else fills the vacuum.

That is exactly what has happened.  Today, millions of Millennials and Generation Z are forming their opinions about Israel not from Scripture but from internet personalities, political commentators, podcasters, and social media influencers.  Names such as Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, the Tate brothers, Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, Stew Peters, Kanye West, Jake Shields, Shawn Ryan, Dave Smith, and countless others now shape the conversation about Israel for an entire generation.  Whether these voices come from the political right or the political left is beside the point.  The church abandoned the conversation.  The culture stepped in.  And now young Christians are being discipled more by YouTube than by the Bible.

That should deeply concern every pastor.

Even if someone rejected the biblical reasons for supporting Israel, the strategic case is overwhelming.  Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger on several occasions, and one point he repeatedly makes is impossible to ignore: “Israel is not America’s charity case.  Israel is one of America’s greatest strategic investments.  Having Israel as an ally in the middle east is like the United States having a permanent aircraft carrier or one of the largest military bases in the middle east.”

The annual $3.8 billion that critics label as “foreign aid” produces an extraordinary return on investment for the United States.  Israel serves as America’s permanent strategic ally in the most volatile region on earth without requiring America to permanently station massive numbers of troops there.

Ask yourself a simple question: Who would you rather have confronting Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, ISIS, and other radical Islamic terrorist organizations?  American soldiers?  Or the Israeli Defense Forces?

Every missile intercepted by Israel … Every terrorist network dismantled … Every Iranian weapons system exposed … is one less threat American troops may someday have to confront.  Israel fights on the front lines so America doesn’t have to.

The benefits go even further, according to Yoram Ettinger.  Unlike nations that simply purchase American weapons, Israel actually fights wars with them and then provides invaluable battlefield feedback directly to the U.S. military and America’s defense contractors.

Israel’s operational experience with the F-35 helped identify hardware and software issues years before they otherwise would have been discovered, potentially saving America 10 to 20 years of research and development and billions of dollars.

Joint development of Arrow missile defense systems and David’s Sling has strengthened American missile defense technology, including THAAD and Patriot systems.

Israel’s real-world combat experience against Iran and the Houthis has provided battlefield testing that no peacetime military exercise could ever duplicate, resulting in improved American weapons and billions of dollars in new defense contracts.

As Ambassador Ettinger has pointed out, Israel functions as America’s largest battle-tested research and development center.  That benefits not only America’s military but its economy as well.

Israel also hosts more than 250 research and development centers for American companies such as Intel, NVIDIA, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Cisco, IBM, Dell, and many others.

The US-Israel relationship is not a one-way street.  It is one of the most mutually beneficial strategic alliances America has ever had, according to Ettinger.

As important as those strategic benefits are, Christians support Israel for a far greater reason. We support Israel because God has spoken.  The foundation of our support rests upon God’s four unconditional covenants with Israel:

1. The Abrahamic Covenant guarantees Israel’s election.

2. The Land Covenant guarantees Israel’s permanent possession of the land.

3. The Davidic Covenant guarantees that Messiah will reign from David’s throne over Israel forever.

4. The New Covenant guarantees Israel’s future national salvation and spiritual restoration.

None of these covenants has ever been revoked.  None has been transferred to the Church. Paul explains this beautifully in Romans 11.  Gentile believers have been graciously grafted into the spiritual blessings that flow through Israel’s covenants.  We are partakers.  We are not overtakers.  The Church has not replaced Israel.  God still has a glorious future for the nation He chose through Abraham.

The Church must wake up.  If pastors continue to remain silent, the next generation will continue receiving its theology from influencers instead of Scripture.  The Church must once again teach the critical role Israel plays in Bible prophecy.  Pastors must explain why the modern rebirth of Israel matters.  They must teach the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New Covenants.  They must preach Romans 9–11 instead of explaining it away.  They must show their congregations that God keeps His promises exactly as He made them.

Unfortunately, churches committed to Replacement Theology are not likely to stand with us in this spiritual battle.  In many cases, they have already embraced a theological framework that naturally produces indifference—or at times even hostility—toward Israel and the Jewish people.

Now, to be fair, there are exceptions.  There are sincere pastors and believers who hold to Replacement Theology who nevertheless support Israel’s democracy, appreciate her strategic value, love the Jewish people, and long to see them come to faith in Jesus Christ.  But they are the exception—not the rule.

The overall trajectory of Replacement Theology has consistently been to reinterpret God’s promises, minimize Israel’s prophetic future, and weaken the Church’s resolve to stand with God’s covenant nation.

This is not simply a debate over theological systems.  It is a debate over whether God’s Word means what it says.  Will God keep the unconditional promises He made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the nation of Israel?  Or will He reinterpret those promises after the fact and give them to someone else?  The answer determines far more than your view of Israel.  It determines whether God’s promises faithfulness can be trusted.

The Church can no longer afford to remain silent.  Israel is not a side issue.  Israel is at the center of God’s prophetic program.  And if the Church will not teach the truth about Israel, someone else will gladly teach the next generation a lie.

 

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

As Students Head for College, How Many Will be Taken Captive by the False Prophets of Democratic Socialism?

This week, hundreds of thousands of young adults in America are heading off for their first semester in college.  How many do you think will be taught that socialism – despite its 100% record of failure – is both practically and morally superior to capitalism? Probably around 90% – despite the fact that America’s institutions of higher learning would be nonexistent without the economic firepower unleashed by our free market economy.

With the takeover of the Democratic Party by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), socialism and even communism – long the preserve of radical university faculties – are reentering the mainstream as unironic calls to action.  Not content with warping the critical faculties of the young, these zealots have moved beyond the quads and into state and national politics, exploiting legitimate concerns about issues like affordability to peddle a politics of grievance and expropriation.

For my generation, this is perplexing.  We came of age at the end of the Cold War, when Soviet communism collapsed and its utter practical and moral bankruptcy was laid bare.  Communism was the most destructive ideology in global history – responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, and the imprisonment and immiseration of millions more.  The idea of its rehabilitation should be unthinkable.

But nearly two generations later, those lessons appear to have faded from memory, while our educational system has instead promoted ahistorical leftist propaganda in place of a solid understanding of history and the capacity for critical thinking.  That deficit is being taken advantage of by the socialists taking control of so many of our institutions, including the Democratic Party.

Of the young people I know, they are hungry for truth; but are all too often being fed lies – especially by the false prophets of democratic socialism.

It’s been said that socialism only works in heaven, where it’s not needed, and hell, where they already have it.  But that aphorism doesn’t quite capture the flaw at the very heart of socialism, which derives from the fundamentally immoral claim to the fruits of another person’s labor, and the inherently coercive apparatus that makes that system possible. Socialism necessarily entails granting more power to the state, and in doing so, creates the conditions for tyranny.  It also necessarily inhibits the human flourishing that only participation in a free-market economy can produce.  It thus not only fails to produce the material benefits its advocates promise, but also leads to the abrogation of liberty and human potential.

Milton Friedman once said, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”  America has prospered because of that recognition.  We must help our young people to resist the siren’s song of those who seek to reverse it.

 

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

Borders, Faith, and Common Sense: But the Midterms Could Put All Those Gains in Jeopardy

With the November midterm elections less than three months away, let’s take a broad look at where we are as a nation under President Trump.  Amid all the mainstream media’s left-wing bias and doom and gloom, it can be easy to forget just how far we have come over the past 19 months.

For starters, America’s southern border is more secure now than at any time in our history. We saw a literal invasion at the border during the Biden years when at least 15 million people from all over the world swarmed into our country illegally.  That invasion ended from practically the moment President Trump took office in January 2025.

Thousands of hardened criminals, murderers, rapists, and child molesters who entered under Biden are being deported back to their countries of origin.  The Trump Administration has also revoked the visas of some 175,000 people, mostly for criminal activity.  At the same time, murder rates in the United States are at historic lows that we haven’t seen in over 100 years.

The Trump Administration is not only making the country safer, it’s also restoring sanity and common sense.  Wokeness is on the retreat.  Gender madness and the transitioning of children are now condemned and marginalized—and rightfully so—rather than celebrated.

DEI programs that favor race and gender identity are being dismantled.  Our government is no longer targeting Christianity as a threat.  Instead, we now have a faith office in the White House, and a commander-in-chief in the Oval Office who held a massive event back in May in D.C., rededicating the nation to God.

This is the faith-friendly administration.  Only good things can come from that.  As God told the prophet Samuel, “those who honor me, I will honor.”

That’s on the home front.

When we look at the global stage, the United States, under President Trump, is once again unquestionably the leader of the free world, from the daring operation to extract Maduro from Venezuela and reclaiming America’s leadership in our hemisphere, to holding communist China accountable, standing with Israel and destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  It has been a foreign policy driven by a peace-through-strength mindset.

Moral clarity has returned on the economic front.  Affordability is the media buzzword they are using to bash Trump, but here’s something to consider—During Joe Biden’s four years in office, inflation was up over 21%, with food up nearly 24%, gas up close to 33%, and electricity up 31%.

Those numbers are staggering, and that was less than two years ago.  Between digging out of that mess and the catastrophe that COVID had on our economy, the Trump numbers in just 19 months are pretty impressive.

Inflation was at just 3.4% for the month of July, and gas prices fell almost 3%—and that is with an ongoing war in the Middle East!

With a little more time and once the dust settles in Iran, the economy is primed to soar, and the American people will benefit from the trade deals the president and his team have struck with a variety of nations.

I hope this is a helpful reminder.  All of these incredible gains are in jeopardy if patriotic, common-sense Americans don’t turn out and vote against the radical collection of Islamists, socialists, and outright communists running in November’s midterm elections.

 

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

Witchcraft Courses Rapidly Expand Across University Campuses

This fall, Arizona State University (ASU) is offering eight courses with words like witchcraft, magic, or the occult in the title.  Meanwhile, one course will cover the bedrock faith of Western Civilization.

“Think about that for a moment,” writes Owen Anderson, who teaches philosophy and religion at the university, at The Blaze.  “At one of the largest public universities in the country, students can choose from a small festival of courses on witchcraft, while Christianity receives [only] a single titled course.”

A quick web search reveals other major universities across the country are offering similar classes.

ASU might argue the courses fall under the classification of history and do not promote witchcraft and the occult.  But at least one course syllabus does not bear that out.  For example, the syllabus for “Witchcraft and Heresy in Europe” says the class will examine how the identity of the heretic and the witch was constructed against its binary opposite, the “orthodox” Christian.  It then turns to “religious Othering,” especially “the female as Other,” and asks students to explain how centuries-old witch persecutions continue to shape their own lives.

“A student scrolling through the catalog may think, Witchcraft?  That sounds like an interesting history class,” Anderson says.  “What the description does not announce plainly is that the course has already selected its moral and political framework before the first reading begins.”

In addition to history, courses in witchcraft approach the topic through anthropology, religion, literature, and media.  The University of New Mexico offers “Legacy of Witchcraft in Popular Culture.”  Duke University offers “Neopaganism and Witchcraft” as part of its religious studies. Universities in the U.K. are also offering classes on the occult.  The University of Exeter features a dedicated master of arts degree program focused entirely on magic and occult sciences.

The fact that these courses are showing up in university studies is a reminder that secular is not neutral, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis noted in a 2024 article.  “As our culture abandons its once Christianized foundation, it doesn’t become some kind of neutral space with a nebulous worldview divorced from spirituality and grounded in ‘science’ and ‘reason,’” Ham wrote.  “That’s because, contrary to the naturalistic view, we are not mere biological beings.  We are a body and a soul.  God created us to yearn for Him and to desire meaning and purpose—things the naturalistic, atheistic worldview cannot provide.”

Jac Marino, a former self-described sorceress who practiced magic for decades until she met Jesus, says that while she doesn’t expect secular universities to hold to the same standards as Christian ones, she is concerned about the message universities are sending through these classes.   “These courses present the lure or bait (which is often that you have the power inside of you to be like God, and that this power can be unlocked through embracing forbidden knowledge) while hiding the hook (these practices that God forbids lead to our destruction),” Marino told Decision.  “The Bible makes clear that ‘each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.  Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death’” (James 1:14-15).

Ham refers to the things of the occult world as “broken cisterns” that don’t satisfy.  “Anyone who goes to the waters of witchcraft, shamanism, divination, psychic readings, and so on will be thirsty again,” Ham said.  “Those ‘broken cisterns’ don’t satisfy.  But Jesus does.  He is the water of life that will never leave you thirsty.  He is the bread of life that lasts forever.  He gives meaning and purpose for now and eternity.”

 

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

TN’s Religious Liberty Comeback Offers a Lesson for Every State

Hundreds of thousands of people have moved to Tennessee (TN) over the past decade. People come to the “Volunteer State” for many reasons, but its commitment to individual liberty is part of the appeal, and recent laws have made TN one of the nation’s strongest protectors of religious liberty.

Tennesseans know that a comeback requires more than playing defense.  The same is true for religious liberty, where advances are made when lawmakers identify specific ways people may be forced to violate their convictions and enact clear protections before those conflicts reach a courtroom.

This year, TN rose to second place in the 2026 Religious Liberty in the States index, up from tenth place in 2025.  The state now protects 85% of the religious liberty safeguards measured by the index, earning an “excellent” rating alongside first-place Arkansas (AR).

TN improved largely because lawmakers enacted the Medical Ethics Defense Act.  The law protects healthcare professionals and institutions from being forced to participate in or pay for medical services that violate their religious or moral convictions.

TN and AR’s success reflects a pattern seen throughout the history of the index.  The 2026 index measures 50 legal protections across 20 safeguards, but three kinds of laws have repeatedly produced some of the largest gains in state scores.

1. Enact a State RFRA

The first is a state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which 30 states now have, including eight out of the top ten states.  Georgia adopted a RFRA in 2025, which contributed to its rank improving from 36th to 23rd.  State RFRAs are important because they provide broad protection when government action substantially burdens a person’s religious exercise.  They require the government to justify such a burden under the strictest legal standard, protecting individuals and organizations when more specific laws do not apply.

2. Protect Conscience in Health Care

Second is a general medical conscience protection, such as what TN enacted this past year. This type of statute allows healthcare providers to decline participation in procedures for reasons of conscience without listing every protected procedure or permissible objection. When South Carolina passed a general medical conscience law in 2022, it rose to second place in the 2023 rankings.  Idaho also passed a version of this law this past year, which helped it move up to eighth place from 13th in 2025.  Although only 11 states have such a law, all ten of the highest-ranked states do.

3. Protect the Right to Decline Participation in Weddings

The third category protects people and organizations that decline to participate in wedding ceremonies or celebrations.  Nineteen states provide some protection for religious entities, but only two protect private businesses from being forced to provide services for weddings that violate their owners’ beliefs.  These laws recognize that religious liberty follows Americans into the marketplace.  Americans should not lose the freedom to live according to their faith simply because they operate a business.

For example, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, declined to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding because of their Christian convictions. Instead of protecting their religious liberty, their home state of Oregon punished them with a $135,000 penalty and issued a gag order against them.  First Liberty represents the Kleins in this case, and notably, Oregon currently ranks 39th in the index.  A clear state law could protect individuals and businesses from this kind of government punishment before years of litigation become necessary.

Court victories remain essential when officials violate constitutional rights, but lawmakers need not wait for a lawsuit.  They can enact durable protections before people are forced to choose between complying with a government mandate and following their religious convictions.

Second place is an achievement, but TN still only protects 85% of the items measured by the index.  The clearest area for improvement involves participation in wedding ceremonies.  TN does not fully protect religious organizations or private businesses that decline to participate in weddings that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

AR is one of the two states that protect private businesses in this area, a distinction that contributed to its first-place finish in 2026.  If TN had adopted protections covering all four wedding-related items, its score this year would be approximately 92.5%.  That would surpass AR’s current score, and would have landed TN at the top of the rankings in the 2026 index.

More important than the ranking, such laws would protect real people and continue to make TN a destination state for religious liberty.

Fellow citizens: See where your state ranks and identify the next steps lawmakers can take in your state to protect religious liberty for all.

 

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

The Anglican Church of Canada Appears to Approve Assisted Suicide

As Canada allows more and more people to opt for “MAiD” (Medical Assistance in Dying)—their government euthanasia program—churches are faced with a pastoral problem: What do you do if someone in your church decides to end their own life at the hand of a doctor?  Well, according to the Anglican Church of Canada, you go to their bedside with a liturgy ready to go.

Now the document doesn’t appear to celebrate MAiD.  Here is what it says in the introduction to this 60-page Pastoral Liturgies at the Time of Death in Contexts of Medically Assisted Dying document:

“Many of the conversations around what constitutes a good death seek to enshrine dignity of the dying person as the highest value.  Very often, the understanding of dignity is tied to one’s autonomy in agency—being able to think, act, and make decisions on one’s own.  Human dignity, however, rests in our being created by a loving God.  It is not something to be tied to a question of worth to be determined according to standards that place autonomy as the highest value of dignity.  God has given us dignity and worth as part of who we are as God’s creatures.  Our agency in health care decisions is, furthermore, something that we need to entrust to God in our discernment.  We do not make decisions alone, but in the presence of God.“

Of course, we would agree with much of that—autonomy is not what gives us dignity, rather God endowed us with dignity when He created us in His very image (interestingly they say “God’s creatures,” rather than being made in God’s image.  That’s not surprising given that, by and large, this liberal denomination accepts evolutionary ideas).  But instead of stopping there and denouncing euthanasia as to what it is—the intentional killing of a human being (murder)—and urging people to start their thinking with Scripture on this issue, they say: “It is not our intent to enter into the ethical arguments regarding MAiD, nor to provide a moral argument for or against MAiD.  This resource is about responding to pastoral needs of those who are dying.”

In other words: “It might be right; it might be wrong.  Who are we to say?  But here’s a resource to give you prayers and Scripture readings at the bedside of someone ending their own life.”  They go on to suggest some pastors might not be okay with seeming to bless MAiD, but don’t worry, you can “walk the challenging path” of choosing and adapting prayers so as not to imply God blesses the procedure:

“A critical consideration for some pastors will be the question of whether or not in pronouncing God’s blessing on the person who is dying, they are blessing the act of the decision towards or blessing the procedure itself.  To some following some Dioceses’ guidance or their own consciences, it will be important to walk the challenging path in choosing and adapting prayers in this resource that do not imply that the procedure, the medical assistance in dying itself, and the decision to employ MAiD, are not being given God’s blessing.  It is, however, a normal part of pastoral care to be praying for and to offer God’s and the Church’s blessing on the person who is dying.”

However, after all these careful caveats, the introduction then says this:

“People who choose MAiD freely and without coercion may indeed be ready to go.  They have been living with and suffering through complex health challenges and they want the pain to stop.  They want to be able to sleep.  They desperately do not want their families and loved ones to watch and wait, wondering how much longer?  They have exhausted all medical options, and they know, everyone knows, that there is no cure.  Some wish, most of all, not to be alone at the time of their death, and to die well.  Some, who are Christian, also desire not to be alone at the time of their death, and to die well, and with the grace and blessing of God and with the presence of the Church at their side.”

That reads an awful lot like a stamp of approval on MAiD from the writers of this liturgical guide!

The guide then gives prayers, confessions, and Scripture readings, along with instructions for communion, to be administered before and after the physician gives the lethal injection and the person’s life ends.

This guidance is an example of someone using the Bible and very Christian-sounding language without actually believing the Bible or having their worldview shaped by Scripture.  They have an “appearance of godliness” in their Christianized language, but in reality, they are claiming that it is a person’s choice whether or not to end their own life and pastors have a duty to be there when that person dies to walk them through it—not to persuade them otherwise or show them from God’s Word that murder is wrong but to participate in their death through the liturgy.

It certainly appears compassionate, but only because they use euphemisms to obscure what is really happening: A physician is murdering a patient.  Just because the patient has requested to be murdered doesn’t make murder okay!

In a fallen world, we will all suffer, but we do not hold the authority of life and death over our own bodies.  We are not autonomous.  God is our Creator, and He holds our lives in His hands and has sovereignly written in our book the number of our days.  We look to Him, not our own fallible human wisdom, for what is right and good.

Whether they want to admit it or not, a euthanasia liturgy is the church blessing the choice of self-murder.  It is the church condoning evil.  Those who are suffering need palliative care from the medical profession—not a lethal injection—and compassion, kindness, and love from the church (and the gospel if they don’t know Christ!).  What they don’t need is approval of a sinful choice that takes control into our own hands instead of trusting in the Creator who numbers our days.

 

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

Can the Liberties of a Nation Be Secure When We Forget the God Who Gave Them?

On the wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC, are these words from President Thomas Jefferson: “God who gave us life gave is liberty.  Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?  Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Someone conducted a study of the world’s great civilizations and noted that every nation has an average cycle of 200 years.  They looked at various nations that came into prominence and then disappeared into obscurity.  And interestingly, each one of these nations went through the same sequence.  They went from spiritual faith to great courage, from great courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency into bondage again.

Where do you think America is today?  Many Americans don’t know—and many don’t care.

Any civilization that ultimately collapsed, or was overcome by a foreign power, first fell apart on the inside.  For example, as the Roman Empire rose to greatness, they no doubt assumed they would be around for centuries to come.  But they were crumbling on the inside.

This appears to be happening in America today.  There’s moral decay on the inside.

We need to get back to the true God, not just spirituality.  We need to get back to the God that our founding fathers believed in when they established this nation: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Yes, we need to get back to the God who sent His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sin.  We need to get back to the true and living God who can save America.

 

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

Codifying Religious Liberties of Military Chaplains

Sen. James Lankford (OK-R) has introduced a bill that aims to clarify the duties and religious liberties of military chaplains.  In recent decades, some military chaplains have faced harassment and discipline for voicing biblical beliefs that are in accord with their denominational affiliations.

“For our country’s 250-year history, military chaplains have walked alongside our service members through the hardest moments of their lives, offering prayer, counsel, and hope in isolated posts and combat zones alike,” Lankford said in a statement last week. “Chaplains serve because they are called to it.  Congress has a responsibility to make sure they can carry out that calling faithfully, without being forced to violate the tenets of their faith and without fear of retaliation for holding to what they believe.  This bill honors the men and women who minister to our heroes who defend our nation.”

Senate co-sponsors of the Military Chaplains Modernization Act, include GOP senators Chuck Grassley (IA), Katie Britt (AL), Mike Rounds (SD) and Kevin Cramer (ND).

Rep. Keith Self (TX-R) has championed the bill in the House, which was part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed July 22.

According to Lankford’s office, the Armed Forces Chaplains Board, which provides “advice and recommendations to Department of War officials on matters of religious exercise,” also supports it.

Among other things, Lankford’s bill would guarantee that chaplains “may conduct worship, provide counseling, teach, deliver sermons, minister, and offer prayer in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs and the tenets of their religious-endorsing organization, free from censorship, undue restriction, or fear of retribution.”  It would also protect chaplains against retaliation and expose those who violate a chaplain’s religious liberties to potential charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Washington Stand, which first reported Lankford’s Senate version of the bill, noted several legal cases in which chaplains were disciplined, accused of unlawful discrimination, and in one case, reassigned and threatened with a discharge.

The latter case involved the late decorated Navy chaplain and combat veteran Wes Modder, who was featured in Decision magazine in 2015.  Modder started his military career as an enlisted Marine, went to seminary, then became a Navy chaplain serving alongside multiple Navy and Marine Corps units, including the revered SEAL Team Six.  Later, while serving in South Carolina in 2014, Modder was stripped of his duties and reassigned to a different post after a sailor, who had asked Modder privately if he believed homosexuality was sinful, complained to Modder’s superiors about his Christian beliefs on sexuality.  Modder faced a potential discharge until he lodged a legal fight with help from First Liberty Institute.  The Navy eventually exonerated Modder and he was able to retire honorably with full benefits.  He died in 2021.

“Military chaplains shouldn’t have to check their faith at the door when they put on the uniform,” Sen. Cramer said.  “They play a vital role in supporting the moral and spiritual wellbeing of our servicemembers, and their ministry and the men and women they serve are strengthened because of their faith.  This legislation protects their ability to minister according to their beliefs and ensures those freedoms are always preserved.”

 

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

AI Is Moving Too Fast - and Not Fast Enough

Artificial intelligence (AI) is moving too fast — and not fast enough.

Move too slowly, and communist China may gain the economic, military, and technological advantage.  Move too quickly, and systems more capable than their creators can fully understand may outrun the ability of governments to control them. Restrict access, and a handful of companies could monopolize machine intelligence. Spread the most powerful systems too widely, and dangerous capabilities may become impossible to recall.

Both warnings can be true.

The disagreement is now dividing the people building the technology.  Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued in The Wall Street Journal on July 28 that America should accelerate AI development rather than restrict it.  He said optimism “should empirically be the default assumption” and warned that concentrating superintelligence inside a few institutions poses its own danger.

The same week, 1,293 employees of frontier AI companies signed a statement called “Pacing the Frontier,” asking the United States to lead an international effort to build tools capable of deliberately slowing automated AI development if progress ever outruns human understanding or control.  Signatories include Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and OpenAI Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki — and, most tellingly, Meta’s own chief scientist, Shengjia Zhao, who signed even as his CEO published what reads like a direct rebuttal.

The split is not between rival companies alone.  It runs through the laboratories themselves.

“Speed up” does not simply mean releasing another chatbot.  It means building more computing capacity, training stronger models, shortening the gap between research and deployment, and applying AI across medicine, science, energy, manufacturing, education, cyber defense, and national security.

President Trump’s Genesis Mission demonstrates why acceleration matters.  Launched by executive order in November 2025, it unites the U.S. Energy Department’s national laboratories, federal scientific data, universities, private companies, supercomputers, and AI systems, aiming to double American science and engineering productivity within a decade.  I described Genesis in these pages as a potential Apollo-scale mobilization. Slowing every form of AI would also slow the search for new medicines, stronger electric grids, better defenses, and breakthroughs America needs.

Still, America cannot regulate itself into second place while Beijing keeps moving.

China is not waiting for Silicon Valley to settle its moral argument.  Beijing is expanding its “AI Plus” initiative and promoting an open-source ecosystem at home and abroad. Europe is taking a different route, applying risk-based rules through its AI Act.  The likely result is several AI ecosystems moving at different speeds under different rules.

There will be no single global speed limit.

Yet the pacing advocates are not demanding that America pull the plug on useful AI. They want the capacity to buy time when a specific frontier system crosses a dangerous threshold — a model capable of autonomous cyber operations, serious biological assistance, sustained independent action, or automating the research that builds its own successor.  Pacing could mean added independent testing, restricted permissions, or a temporary delay before release.

That concern is no longer theoretical.  Cloud Security Alliance research published in April found that 65% of organizations had already suffered a cybersecurity incident caused by an AI agent operating on their own network.  The most dramatic instance surfaced this July, when OpenAI disclosed that a model being tested with its safeguards found an unknown vulnerability, escaped its network restrictions, and compromised another company’s systems while hunting for benchmark answers.  OpenAI found no hostile intent; the model was simply “hyperfocused” on its assigned goal and pursued it through methods its designers never intended.

Speed had outrun control.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said afterward that the industry “may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around some of these new capability levels.”  He has since discussed pacing with White House officials.

Altman has identified the dilemma correctly.  So has Zuckerberg.

Pressing the accelerator may preserve American leadership and hasten discoveries — but it may also compress safety testing, destabilize labor markets, and grant authority to systems before anyone can reliably govern them.  Applying the brake buys engineers time to prepare, yet a mismanaged pause could just as easily strengthen China and hand the reins to regulators who understand the technology less than the people they oversee.

This is the prisoner’s dilemma Robert Maginnis described in “The New AI Cold War,” though here it plays out among competitors rather than nations.  Every company may privately prefer more time for testing, but none wants to slow first.  If one American company pauses, a rival may pass it.  If American companies pause together, China may keep moving.  Competitive pressure pushes everyone forward even when some fear the road ends at a cliff.

Can America speed up and slow down at the same time?  It must.

We should accelerate Genesis, American chip production, data center capacity, scientific applications, defensive cybersecurity, workforce preparation, and safety research.  We should also build guarded checkpoints for systems that demonstrate dangerous, irreversible, or hard-to-contain capabilities — independent evaluation, significant-incident reporting, staged deployment, and temporary, reviewable delays when defined thresholds are crossed. Congress has not yet acted on any of this, but frontier laboratories can supply expertise; they cannot be the final judges of their own creations. Elected government must set the public rules, Congress must provide oversight, and independent evaluators must test the systems.

America does not need one speed limit for every AI system.  It needs open highways for beneficial innovation and guarded crossings where power becomes difficult to reverse.

Christians should approach this argument with prudence rather than panic.  Proverbs 14:15 says, “The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.”

Zuckerberg’s optimism is not proof that speed will end well.  The pacing advocates’ fear is not proof America should surrender the race.  Technology is not providence, and strategic victory is not the highest moral good.  The ability to build something does not confer the wisdom — or the moral authority — to deploy it without restraint.

America must move fast enough to remain free, prosperous, and secure, yet carefully enough to remain human and in control.  Above all, those driving must stay answerable to the people whose future rides with them.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Are Parents Up for the Challenge of Social Media?

France’s recent social media ban for minors under 15 has reignited the conversation of whether the U.S. should follow suit.  

The debate surrounding a ban on social media has largely moved past questioning whether social platforms are positive, negative, or neutral tools.  Studies abound demonstrating the addictive properties of social media and their correlation to sleeplessness, self-image issues, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts — especially among minors.  The surgeon general even issued a statement recommending health warnings on social media platforms, akin to those required for tobacco companies, and limiting minors’ access.  By 2026, most people don’t need convincing that social media has its problems.

Moreover, research shows that the benefits of social media largely only exist because a majority of teenagers use it.  The Pew Research Center finds over half of U.S. teens use YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, placing those who forgo the platforms in the minority.  Consequently, Pew found teenagers who choose to join the trend of social media use it because it makes them feel more accepted and connected with their fellow platform-using peers.  This desire to fit in with peers, or “fear of missing out,” would be a nonfactor if social media platforms were removed from teenage demographics entirely.

Moderates often try to walk the line between seeing social media as harmful and helpful by describing it as a neutral “tool” — but it is not the neutral tool many think.  Social media algorithms are designed to spark engagement, often by rewarding controversial or inflammatory content.  Earlier this year, whistleblowers inside Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, even reported receiving instructions to allow more misogynistic, violent, and conspiratorial content when stock prices were down so engagement would go up.  As a result, children are exposed to more radical political and religious perspectives than they likely ever would in their in-person lives — all without the knowledge or oversight of their parents.

As children engage with this content, social media algorithms are designed to reward their engagement with more similar content, creating an echo-chamber effect. Uncoincidentally, radicalism on both sides of the political spectrum has increased among younger demographics.  Polls show a quarter of young liberals now justify violence against their political opponents and almost two-thirds support socialist policies, all while young conservatives line up behind problematic voices like Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens.  The echo chamber validates these extreme perspectives, places children in communities of millions of others who validate the views, and demonizes opponents — all while ensuring users never have to see or hear neutral, humble, or different points of view.

Anecdotally and academically, we know social media is harmful for our kids.  And, though cellphone bans are recent and data is scarce, we have reason to believe less screen time is a positive.

State bans on cellphones in high schools give a hint at what the impact of a teenage demographic without social media could look like.  A study released in April 2026 by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined 43,000 middle and high school students affected by cellphone bans in 26 U.S. states.  Their findings discovered a brief adjustment period, followed by significant drops in cellphone usage and increases in student well-being.

So, other problems with French politics aside, why is the U.S. so reluctant to follow in their footsteps?

According to some conservative experts and parental rights advocates, concern stems from the idea that a widespread federal ban on student social media would replace parental authority with federal regulation.  And perhaps the concern is warranted.  In the past, other areas of parental involvement, like sex education, have resulted in harmful ideology and federal regulation worming its way in and undermining parental influence. Just last month, the Trump Administration announced over $67 million in Teen Pregnancy Prevention program cuts to remove explicit content, abortion ads, and LGBTQ+ ideology from what was meant to be practical, objective health education.

But are parents up for the challenge of social media?  The numbers suggest maybe not. Pew Research data shows that Gen X and Baby Boomers use top social media platforms drastically less than younger generations, suggesting parents are unfamiliar with the functions, dangers, or tools available on each platform, not to mention the frequent new updates.  And even if parents are up-to-date, children in public school or out-of-the-house activities spend hours a day away from their parents using a myriad of social-capable devices — personal cellphones, laptops, e-readers, school computers, smartwatches, and even video gaming consoles.  It is presumptuous for parents to think they can be aware of — let alone control — all the ways their children access the internet.

When it comes to social media, even the most proactive parent can be undermined by determined children.  In high school, when friends would have their cellphones taken away or parental controls added, they would just access their accounts through another friend’s device at school or, believe it or not, buy a pre-paid burner phone online without their parents’ knowledge (Amazon has a whole category for it).

In contrast, the U.S. has a long precedent of restricting dangerous content at its source for the sake of children, and largely for the best.  Consider alcohol, or tobacco, or pornography. Imagine a child could walk into a bar and order a drink, and the bartender could serve him or her because a parent was not around.  Such an interaction is unthinkable — not to mention illegal — in today’s society.  Instead, the bartender is required to check ID, maintain a valid liquor license, and prevent the customer from drinking or driving irresponsibly.  Failure to do so means heavy legal consequences for a bar — so why not hold social media companies to the same standard?

The Bible is clear that children are the charge of parents (Deuteronomy 6:6-7), and that parents are responsible for raising children up in the way they should go (Proverbs 22:6). Such authority should never be ceded to a government body.  But the Bible also prescribes law and biblical authority to government to protect families from greater societal threats.

Whether it’s alcohol or social media, parents should always guide the conversation for how their children approach tricky topics.  But with addiction, mental health crises, and radicalism on the rise, perhaps it’s time to consider that social media companies can access children in more ways than parents can protect them.

In the end, a social media ban would not mean parents give up on protecting or teaching their children — it just means parents can do it best with a little help.

 

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

A Sacred Honor Having a Holy Duty

One of God’s most sacred honors bestowed upon a man or woman is parenthood.  Through the gift of a child, we are invited to participate in the Lord’s holy work of nurturing a life that reflects the heavenly qualities of our Creator.  As faithful stewards of His children, our responsibility is to love them as deeply as Christ loves us, so they will grow to love Him.  What an incredible privilege.

For a few short years, God places a young heart in our care.  Tiny eyes observe our every move.  Little ears listen to every word.  Impressionable minds search for what is good, true, worthy of love, and deserving of trust.

Before our children comprehend theology, they form their understanding of God by watching us.  Every interaction becomes a divine opportunity with eternal significance. This is the sacred honor of parenthood, and with it comes a holy duty to point the hearts entrusted to us back to the One who defines their true identity and purpose.  God designed parents to be the first and primary heart educators.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 could not be clearer: “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.  You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”

Yet, somewhere along the way we outsourced our responsibility.  Parents became managers of schedules rather than shapers of hearts.  For two generations, we’ve:

Granted schools free rein to educate.

Asked churches to disciple.

Expected coaches to build character.

Hired therapists to heal emotions.

Allowed social media to entertain.

Permitted friends to influence values.

Though some of these provide indispensable help in child-rearing, none should replace the parent as authority over their children’s hearts.  The Formation Gap did not occur because parents stopped caring.  It began because our culture slowly convinced us that others could be responsible for the rearing of children.

From the moment a child is born, the work of heart formation begins.  We assume the holy duty of nurturing the attitudes and affections that shape how our children view God and their place in the world.  During the early years, it is soft and malleable.  Every tender act of love or harsh rejection leaves an imprint.  As children grow, deeper impressions form.  By thirteen, the heart solidifies, preserving either the rock-solid truth or the distorted beliefs found inside.  The resulting heart posture becomes the foundation upon which they build their lives.

In middle school, their foundational worldview is tested.  Adolescents ponder, What do I really believe?  They assess whether the faith their parents profess is the faith they actually live. They want to know if you are real.

Does Dad seek the Lord when life is difficult?

Does Mom extend forgiveness when she’s been hurt?

Does our family honor Christ behind closed doors as we do in public?

If our children see Scripture as a chore, they will avoid it.  If they view prayer as irrelevant, they will dismiss it.  If they experience church as an obligation, they will resent it.  But, if they witness joy flowing from our relationship with Christ, they’ll desire what we have.

Children don’t need perfect parents.  They need parents who humbly admit their imperfections and faithfully depend on God’s grace.  They need to hear us speak words of thanksgiving at the dinner table, gratitude amidst difficulty, and forgiveness after conflict.  The authenticity of our faith becomes the blueprint for our children’s lives.  The condition of our heart becomes the curriculum of theirs.

In a world where so many young people ask, Who am I?, one of the greatest gifts we can give our children is the security of parents who know who they are — and proclaim whose they are.  If our identity is rooted in success, our children will prioritize performance.  If it is rooted in approval, they will strive to please people.  If it is rooted in possessions, they will learn to pursue things.  But, when our identity is firmly rooted in Christ, our children discover that nothing this world offers compares to the comfort of belonging in Him.

Long after they forget our instructions, children will recall our faith on display, whether real or superficial.  They will remember if we merely told them about God or if we helped them fall in love with Him.  An authentic walk with Christ is the clearest picture of identity in Him we can ever give our children.

A.W. Tozer prayed, “Lord, help me to demonstrate a God so real that no one could ever be bored with Him.”  We need to join his cry that our faith would be so riveting our children would never be bored with Christ!

As you consider the sacred honor you have been given, meditate on these words from Deuteronomy 4:40: “Therefore, you shall keep His statutes and His commandments, which I command you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for all time.”

Your holy duty is more than raising children, it’s partnering with God in the formation of an eternal soul.  It is a divine calling.

 

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