California: Banning or Burning Religious Books?

California’s “Must Stay Gay Bill” could literally mean the banning of certain religious books.

On April 17, David French noted that this bill “...would actually – among other things – ban the sale of books expressing orthodox Christian beliefs about sexual morality.  Yes, ban the sale of books.”

“Assembly Bill 2943 would make it an ‘unlawful business practice’ to engage in ‘a transaction intended to result or that result in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer’ that advertise, offer to engage in, or do engage in ‘sexual orientation change efforts with an individual’” says French.

You might well say, “No one in their right mind would consider voting for such a bill. That’s totally insane.”  Well, think again.

AB 2943 bans books, conferences, or counseling advocating Muslim, Jewish, and Christian views on gender and sexual orientation.  The California Assembly already approved a bill (50-18) that tells churches and other[s] with traditional beliefs about gender and sexual orientation that advocating for their views could get them sued.  AB 2943 declares ‘advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual’ is illegal under state’s consumer fraud law.

As a conservative Christian, it’s tempting to say to California and the rest of America: Go ahead.  Pass your radical bills.  Outlaw our most fundamental freedoms.  Consign struggling people to their struggles.  Muzzle our religious rights.  Go ahead and do your thing, and we’ll watch the whole country crumble.  Perhaps then the church (and other people of conscience) will wake up.  Perhaps then they’ll understand the warning that those who came out of the closet want to put us in the closet.  Perhaps then they’ll see the utter intolerance of the radical left.

But then I must consider the cost: At what price to our kids and grandkids?  At what expense to the very fabric of our country?  Some things leave irreparable damage in their wake.

My friends: It’s not too late – but it is getting later by the day.  Of course, the mockers will say, “You’re a nutcase!  You’re a religious fanatic!  No one is going to burn your silly books!”

Dr. Michael Brown, host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program, reminds these mockers of four things:

• First, these same mockers once said to me, “No one wants to put you in the closet.”  A few years later, they changed their mantra to, “Bigots like you belong in the closet!”
• Second, these same mockers rejoiced when Kim Davis was put in jail, saying she got what she deserved when she refused to sign same-sex marriage licenses in Kentucky.
• Third, these same mockers have likened Christian conservatives to ISIS and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and the Nazis, holding signs saying that we should be thrown to the lions.
• Fourth, and most tellingly, these same mockers think this new California bill is a great thing.

Listen, California and the rest of America: It’s past time to wake up!  You ignore this bill at your own peril.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Threat of False Teaching is in the Church

The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), clearly states the purpose of the Church.  Christ Jesus, the Head of the Church, said: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”  As a result, the Church has always made great efforts to teach the Bible.  But efforts do not always bring about results.  Interaction with culture, difficult passages in the Bible, and the power of sin to affect the mind have contributed to the formulation and dissemination of false or incorrect teaching.  Churches and individual believers make a serious mistake if they think they are immune to error.  That is exactly what the enemy wants — for Christians to be unaware of his efforts to attack believers through false teaching.

We must recognize that false teaching is a real threat because the Bible continually warns us.  Jesus warns us that false teachers will come from outside the community of believers, trying to hide their true intentions (Matt. 7:15-20).  Peter tells us that false teachers can also arise from within the community of believers, bringing doctrine that is destructive and poisonous (2 Peter 2:1).  The Apostle Paul continually warned the churches that he served that if false teachers in their midst were left unchecked, the results would be disastrous (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 11:1-21; 1 Tim. 6:3-5).  Simply put, false teaching is not just a problem for other people and churches out there; it is a problem about which all believers must be vigilant and against which they must be on guard.

Since we are called to be alert to the threat of false teaching in our midst, for what should we be looking?  

If we expect that a sudden and dramatic falsehood will enter the Church, we will not be looking in the right place.  It is true that great falsehoods have been found in the Church, but not typically in a sudden fashion.  The enemy of our souls prefers a subtler approach – sowing doubts and twisting the truth to make falsehood acceptable.

Another thing we need to remember is that false teaching does not always come into the Church as a result of deliberate attempts to deceive Christians and trick them into denying the faith.  Such tactics certainly are possible, for the New Testament does record instances of “the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 2:4) and those who “crept in unnoticed … ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).  We should not be naive and ignore signs of such attacks.  But more often, the danger of false teaching comes from other avenues.

Three avenues to which we must be especially alert are the desire to find some new and interesting teaching or doctrine, an overreaction to other teaching errors in the church, and a desire to avoid criticism, particularly criticism from the world around us.

THE DESIRE FOR NEW TEACHING

Perhaps the most “innocent” way that false teaching can come into the Church is when someone attempts to find a new and innovative way to understand the Bible.  The Bible is an ancient book that pastors, elders, and scholars have studied for millennia.  It is hard to think of a biblical topic about which hundreds of books have not been written.

OVERREACTION TO ERROR

A second way that false teaching can enter the Church is when teachers try overzealously to protect the Church from error.  The greatest and most precious truths of the Bible have been explained and understood with great care throughout the centuries.  Doctrines such as the Trinity, the person of Christ, and the relationship between faith and works have been developed from an understanding of the totality of Scripture and with the knowledge that there are equal and opposite errors that someone can fall into.  An example is when various false teachers throughout history have sought to deal with the supposed problem of tritheism in the doctrine of the Trinity (that the doctrine appears to teach there are three Gods).  From Sabellius in the third century, to Michael Servetus during the Reformation, to oneness theologians today, attempts to “ensure” that the Church teaches monotheism have often resulted in false teaching about the Trinity.

THE DESIRE TO AVOID CRITICISM

A third way that false teaching enters the Church is when teachers are overly desirous to avoid criticism, especially when that criticism comes from the surrounding culture.  This is where human nature, especially our sinful pride, comes in.  People do not like to be thought of as ignorant, uncultured, or uneducated.  They do not enjoy being looked down on by others for things they believe or say.  And yet this is a fundamental part of being a Christian.  To be a Christian means to believe that what God says in His Word is true even if everyone around you disagrees.  It was this way of thinking that led to a departure from the biblical truth about the atonement and Christ’s sacrifice.  Cries against “cosmic child abuse” and a “harsh, vengeful Father” have led some to teach against the substitutionary atonement of Christ.  This, in turn, has led to the redefinition of sin, repentance, and holiness.  Once the thread starts to unravel, the whole cloth begins to tear.

We have seen some of the ways that false teaching arises in the Church.  How, then, does it take root and continue, despite being contrary to the truth of God’s Word and the mission of the Church?  If we can see how false teaching spreads and becomes accepted, we will be more prepared to confront it.  There are a variety of factors involved here.  Let us look at three.

EDUCATIONAL

One of the most common contributors to the spread of false teaching in the Church is a general lack of Bible knowledge and discernment among the people.  A problem arises when believers do not have the willingness or the ability to search the Scriptures for themselves.  This leads to a dependence on human authority and allows false teaching to take root and spread.  The educational goal of the Church should be not just to transmit knowledge of the Bible, but also to transmit a love for the Bible and an eagerness to study it.

INSTITUTIONAL

A second contributor to the spread of false teaching is institutional — the failure to hold people accountable for their false teaching.  It has often been noted that there are three marks of the true Church: the right preaching of the Word, the right administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline.  When the Church turns a blind eye to false teaching because its proponents are popular or have “successful ministries” (one thinks of more people or more money), or simply to avoid conflict in the Church, it allows false teaching to spread and to be the source of further division and conflict.  Church discipline exists to uphold the glory of Christ and His truth and also to protect the people of God from error and its consequences.

LEADERSHIP

There is a third contributor to the advance of false teaching in the Church, and it is related to leadership.  Even when the people of God are eager to study His Word and the Church is prepared to exercise discipline, false teaching can flourish when the leadership of the Church is ill prepared and poorly trained.  The lower we set our standards for training pastors and elders for the ministry, the less prepared they will be to recognize false teaching.  Pastors and elders who are untrained in historical theology will miss the reappearance of ancient false teaching in modern clothing.  Those who have not been trained well in the Bible, its languages, and principles of its sound interpretation may fall prey to novel teachings that seem to explain away problems or contradictions. To combat false teaching, the Church needs pastors, elders, and teachers who are both willing and able to confront falsehood.

False teaching is a danger to the Church of Jesus Christ, and it can arise from different quarters and flourish if not confronted.  How does knowing the origin and presence of false teaching help us combat it?  Briefly put, such knowledge keeps us from being complacent about false teaching and the danger it presents.  Being aware of where false teaching comes from keeps us alert.  And perhaps most importantly, if we are mindful of false teaching, we will be driven to study our Bibles more and more, to be prepared to stand for the truth that the Lord has given to us and impresses on our hearts by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Churches: Beware of Wolves in the Flock

Throughout the Church’s history, our enemy has raised up many of its own false teachers … parading them and welcoming them into our homes and churches.  False teachers abound on many of the so-called Christian television networks, and books by false teachers fill the shelves of many so-called Christian bookstores.  And while many Christians are rightly concerned about the growth of religions such as Islam, the greatest threat to orthodox Christianity is not other religions, but false teachers who creep into the Church … often unnoticed.

False teachers creep into the Church not because they look like false teachers, but because they look like angels.  They disguise themselves just as their master Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.  When false teachers attempt to creep into the Church, they typically don’t look like wolves because they wear sheep’s clothing and use some of the same language that the sheep use.  They regularly quote Scripture, and they are often able to quote more Scripture than the average worshiper.

False teachers are not always argumentative or divisive; often they are some of the nicest people we know.  They usually creep in: not with scowls on their faces, but with big smiles; not normally teaching obvious heresies and falsehoods, but delicately questioning the truth and teaching partial truths; not always identified by what they actually teach, but by what they leave out of their teaching.  They often speak of Jesus, salvation, the gospel, and faith, but they twist the words and concepts of Scripture to fit their own versions of the truth … which is no truth at all.

They typically don’t attempt to creep into churches where the Word of God is preached boldly and passionately; where the people are eager for and receive sound preaching of Scripture; where they are growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Rather, they usually target those churches where people are indifferent to doctrine, apathetic about the preaching of the Word of God, and the faithful pastor of the flock is not held in high esteem.

Listen: The surest way to prevent and stop the spread of false teaching is for Christian leaders and lay-people, pastors and parishioners, teachers and learners, to be committed to the sound preaching of Scripture and defend their pastor who is rightly dividing the Word of God.  Only then will false teachers be recognized for who they are and the sheep of Christ be protected from error – all to the end of living coram Deo (before the face of God) – for God’s glory according to God’s unchanging truth.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

CA Gives Sanctuary to Illegals and Scrutiny to Homeschoolers

In recent years, much has been made about people leaving California over the high cost of living, its liberal leanings, and its giving ‘sanctuary’ to illegal immigrants.  These are the obvious and widely known reasons for the exodus.  But one organization believes that it may get worse if a bill involving homeschooling is passed.

Following the arrest of homeschooling parents David and Louise Turpin in Riverside County, CA, on January 17th, state lawmakers have been discussing legislation they say would not only check on the health and safety of homeschool students in CA, but ensure that they are getting what lawmakers feel is a good education.  The Turpins were charged with felony child abuse, false imprisonment and torture.

Recently, state lawmaker Susan Talamantes Eggman introduced Assembly Bill 2926 – legislation that Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) contends is a very dangerous piece of legislation.  “And it’s going to be a precursor to more direct legislation,” Dacus pointed out last week on American Family Radio’s (AFR) Janet Mefferd Live radio program.  “The initial language was going to allow the fire departments to randomly invade homes of homeschoolers without a warrant at least twice a year just to make sure that they’re healthy and safe.  That was taken out, but what’s in the legislation right now is the formation of a committee, and this committee would investigate to determine what needs to be regulated, in terms of homeschooling,” says Dacus.

According to the attorney, the areas to be scrutinized would be: (1) health and safety, (2) whether or not the instructors are credentialed teachers, and (3) curriculum.  The legal expert feels that all three are illegitimate justifications.  “California law requires that homeschoolers file a private school affidavit, and it’s a real basic criteria to satisfy,” Dacus informed.  “You file the affidavit, you have to keep a record of the attendance of your child in that private school, what days are they doing schoolwork, are they actually there or somewhere else – but that’s just to make sure that parents aren’t just doing nothing.”

PJI encourages parents to keep a folder on their child.  “It’s to show that, ‘No, we are a bonafide homeschooling entity and here’s all the work the child has done,’” Dacus explained.  “We actually had a victory in appellate court where the judge ruled in favor of our client – homeschoolers – and declared that homeschoolers do not have to have a teaching credential in order to homeschool.  So, we have tremendous freedom in California, but this bill is going to be a precursor to heavy regulations that will undoubtedly result in many homeschoolers leaving the state of California.”

Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has voiced similar concerns about AB 2926.

Public schools, teachers unions and politicians have all waged stiff opposition to homeschooling over the years, not wanting to give up their states’ unbridled control of education, and they stand strongly behind the new piece of legislation.

“The teachers union is number one – as far as pushing it,” Dacus continued.  “They hate homeschoolers for purposes of power and more.  The more people that homeschool, the less that are in public schools, the less teachers, the less union dues, and the less control they have of the legislature.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Bibles Banned in China

Chinese Holy Bibles are no longer available for sale online, as demanded by the Chinese government.  Not a single Bible can be found amongst Chinese online stores … including Amazon.  Customers who had added a Bible to their shopping cart the day before are no longer able to complete their purchase.  Only various “Bible stories” are still available for purchase.

The distribution of the Bible has always been restricted in China.  Unlike the Quran and Buddhist Sutras, which are permitted to be freely sold both online and in brick-and-mortar bookstores, the Chinese Holy Bible is restricted to distribution solely by government-held churches.  The Bible cannot be obtained through public channels, such as bookstores.

Moreover, only one printing company — the Jiangsu Amity Printing Company — is authorized to print the Bible, and the total number of Bibles printed each year is also severely restricted.  

Since 1987, the Episcopal Church of America has donated the royalties, paper, and printing machines necessary for making the Bible affordable for Chinese citizens.  The standard Bible is less than $1 and is lightweight with excellent quality paper, printing, and binding.

As online shopping has become more and more accessible to distant cities over the past 5-years, some Christians started purchasing Bibles from government-held churches and selling them through online platforms.  These online sales have made the Bible more accessible for those in rural areas without access to government-held churches, as well as curious non-Christians who do not know where to purchase one.  The government has never restricted the online sale of the Bibles until now.

Currently, one can still access electronic Bibles through certain apps.  WeDevoteBible, a popular Bible app equivalent to YouVersion, provides the same design and format as the printed Bible, and supplements it with commentaries.  This app provides even greater access to the Bible for Chinese citizens.  Many Chinese Christians are concerned that WeDevoteBible will also soon be shut down.

The proclamation which banned the online sale of Bibles gave no indication of the reason behind this restrictive measure against the distribution of the Bible.  Some Chinese web users speculate that it is part of the movement intending to incorporate Chinese characteristics into Christianity.  The tightened restriction of the Bible distribution, some suspect, is to provide room for the government to “fix” the current translation of the Bible, the Chinese Union Version translated in 1919, in order to incorporate traditional Chinese cultural and socialist core values into the Bible.

More than likely, this change is related to the implementation of the newly revised Regulation on Religious Affairs and Cyber Security Law.  These regulations led to a nationwide crackdown on Chinese Christians and stronger control over Christian activities on the Internet.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Artists Await SCOTUS Baker Decision

While the nation awaits a landmark U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling on a Colorado baker, two Arizona artists are also waiting to learn the future of their 1st Amendment rights.  The ordinance they’re fighting, meanwhile, can literally land them both in a jail cell.

The Arizona case involves Brush & Nib Studio (located in Phoenix), where owners Joana Duka and Breana Koski create hand-drawn invitations, paintings, and signs for weddings, businesses and everyday moments.  What’s the problem?  Phoenix has an ordinance that states Duka and Koski have to provide the same artwork for same-sex weddings, which the owners say violates their religious beliefs about marriage. 

If the ordinance is enforced by the City of Phoenix, the artists could be sentenced to jail for failing to comply, says Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorney Jonathan Scruggs.  “It’s a criminal law,” he explains.  “So if you’re found in violation of the law, penalties are $2,500 in fines, up to six months in jail and three years of probation, for every day you don’t comply.”

The artists filed suit in 2016, citing a violation of the Arizona Constitution and the state’s Arizona Free Exercise of Religion Act, and their case is currently before the appellate court after losing in a lower court.

“And we are optimistic,” says Scruggs, “the court will vindicate the right of these two young artists, who just want to operate their business in accordance with their beliefs.”

SCOTUS heard oral arguments in December 2017 over the Masterpiece Cake Shop, where business owner Jack Phillips was fined by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for turning down an order to design a same-sex wedding cake.  A decision on that case is expected in June 2018, which is expected to impact not just Brush and Nib but also others business owners such as Phillips who have fought - and lost - anti-discrimination laws in the courts.

“No one should be compelled to convey messages they disagree with,” Scruggs argues, “and that’s something that should really be a basic principle that Phoenix yet is still violating.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Target Continues to Miss the Target *

Will Target ever get smart?  Another danger has occurred in another Target store, this time in Chicago.  Police say a man exposed himself to a little girl in the women’s restroom on March 31st, when he entered a stall and told her to leave.  A spokesman for Target said the man, who has not been identified, was intoxicated.

Target’s corporate headquarters has been in a 2-year battle with the Mississippi-based American Family Association (AFA) after Target publicized its “inclusive” pro-transgender policy that allows men who identify as women to use the women-only facilities in stores.

Already known for its public support of progressive liberal causes, including homosexual activism, Target executives publicized the store policy when the issue of transgenders and restrooms was making national headlines.  AFA warned Target at the time, however, that straight men could use the liberal policy to prey on unsuspecting female customers, and to date such incidents have been documented by local media at Target stores in Texas, Oregon, Tennessee, Idaho, New Jersey, California, and other states.  AFA also launched a boycott of Target stores that topped a million online signatures in under a week. 

In a news story about the Target store incident, NBC News Chicago said police warned the public that parents should always be cautious of their surroundings, including in public restrooms.  AFA spokesman Walker Wildmon questions why such a warning would be made, when Target has publicly stated that it is not monitoring who enters the women’s restrooms.  “According to Target’s policy, if the mother or daughter had objected to this man entering the women’s restroom, they couldn’t have,” he points out.  “They would have no standing, because according to Target’s policy, men can access women’s restrooms and changing rooms.”  Until that policy changes, he adds, every female customer is vulnerable to sexual predators.

The news story also included public reaction to the incident including one person who called the incident “evil” and another who said the man was wrong for entering the women’s restroom.  “It’s sad,” said another customer, “that we have to be fearful for our children to go to the women’s restroom.”

“If you were to poll the American public, nearly everyone would say, men need to go to men’s rooms, women need to go to women’s rooms,” says Wildmon.  “That’s basic common sense and Target is defying common sense.”

*The New Testament Greek word for “sin” means “missing the mark” or “off the mark.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

CA Politicians Deem Redemption a Fraud

The newest pro-LGBT bill in California is being challenged for its Orwellian attempt to stifle the gospel message of deliverance and redemption under the guise of consumer safety.

The controversial measure in question, Assembly Bill 2943, mirrors attempts in other states to ban so-called “conversion therapy” for homosexuals.  But it also carries those successful laws to the next logical steps: the pulpit of the church, the offices of a counselor, and the pages of a book.

A law is already on the books in California banning counseling for people under 18 with unwanted same-sex attractions, says attorney Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI).  “Now the state of California is even more emboldened,” he warned recently on the ‘Sandy Rios in the Morning’ show, “as this bill applies to everyone – all licensed counselors, and even people selling books on therapy.”

AB 2943, described by proponents as consumer fraud legislation, is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection.  Citing the language of the bill, Dacus said a Christian conference that includes former homosexuals would be considered an illegal activity, hence their claims - Christian testimonies - would be considered false and misleading under California law.

There is no question the new bill uses consumer fraud to stop free speech, including religious beliefs about sex and marriage that are considered ‘hate speech’ by some California legislators.

“The California Assembly is considering a bill that would classify conversion therapy as fraud,” begins a story by the left-wing Media Matters, which goes on to rattle off the ‘hate groups’ opposing AB 2943 including: PJI, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Family Research Council.

OneNewsNow reported in 2016 that a state senator reluctantly withdrew a bill that would have forced the state’s private religious colleges and universities to allow open homosexuals or lose financial aid.  Only when minority students publicly protested the loss of Cal Grant money did Sen. Ricardo Lara withdraw the bill … vowing to bring it back at a later date to punish religious schools for their “appalling” discrimination.

In a PJI press release describing this legal fight, Dacus recalls that PJI challenged a similar bill, SB 1172.  That law was upheld by a federal appeals court that claimed it was limited to minors and a licensed professional.

California legislators have been warned by licensed professionals that victims of sexual abuse would be barred from undergoing counseling sessions … citing the testimony of a licensed psychologist, reported in a mid-March update on AB 2943.  If the law passes, victims of sexual abuse can seek counseling if their abuser is the opposite sex but not the same sex, the testimony pointed out.  “It is very disturbing,” Dacus said of this new legislation.  “It’s controlling the dialogue and the messaging, not just in the public schools, but the public square in a very alarming way.” 

Dacus went on to warn people outside California that the homosexual activists won’t stop with left-wing legislators in the Golden State.  “If it’s not stopped in California,” he said, “it’s coming to a state near you.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

ACLJ Victory for Student’s 1st Amendment Rights

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) recently secured an important victory on behalf of a student attending a community college in Oregon when the school rightly recognized his 1st Amendment right to address curricular assignments from a religious viewpoint.

The situation arose when, after multiple back-and-forth communications involving faith, the professor read the student’s latest assignment, an essay on friendship, in which the student alluded to the intimately close friendship one might have as a Christian with Jesus.  The professor voluntarily injected her own personal beliefs into the conversation by noting on the assignment paper that not everyone believed in God.  When the student responded by expressing his concerns for the professor, based on his faith, the professor asked the student to refrain from further discussing religion with her.  The student respectfully explained that the reason he discusses religion with others, including her, is because he believes, based on his reading of the Bible, Christians have a responsibility to share their faith.  In the same response, however, the student expressly wrote that he would honor the professor’s request and cease personal religious discussions.

Despite this acknowledgment and agreement to her request, the professor complained to the college that the student was harassing her, prompting a meeting with a college official responsible for addressing student conduct issues.  While the student maintained his agreement not to address matters of religion with the professor on a personal level, the conduct officer’s instructions went further, restricting the student from addressing matters of religion in any way in this professor’s class, including when appropriately responding to curricular assignments.

With the assistance of ACLJ, the student notified the conduct officer that he could not agree to such terms, as they would operate in direct violation of his right to the freedom of speech.  The conduct officer, however, was undeterred and maintained the position that the student must treat this particular professor’s class as effectively a religion-free zone.  ACLJ immediately issued a letter to the college’s administration explaining that students have a constitutional right to speak from a religious viewpoint, and, as courts have repeatedly recognized, such speech, when germane to the subject matter of an assignment, rather than constituting harassment, is in fact fully protected.  ACLJ’s letter demanded that the college retract the instructions given by the conduct officer and formally acknowledge the student’s right to respond to curricular assignments from a religious perspective.  The college was quick to respond and rightly agreed that the student would be permitted, without further negative consequences, to respond to curricular assignments from a religious point of view.  

Thus, when the student was recently assigned an essay discussing holidays that are important to him, and the reasons therefor, he was able to write about Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, including the explanation that for him, as a Christian, Easter is important because Jesus’ resurrection provided the opportunity for eternal life.

Thank God for such legal organizations as ACLJ who defend the right of students to engage in religious expression free from the result of government-imposed penalties … even when it may be deemed offensive to some.  ACLJ will continue to remind government entities that religious speech is constitutionally protected and, despite the objections of those who find such speech controversial, it may not, for that reason, be silenced.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

This is a HUGE Win for Religious Freedom

In a major victory for the 1st Amendment right to religious freedom, a federal judge has ruled in favor of Catholic Benefits Association (CBA) members, issuing declaratory relief and a permanent injunction against the Obamacare CASC (contraception, abortifacient, sterilization, and related counseling) Mandate.  The ruling also eliminates $6.9 billion in fines that have accumulated against CBA members.

The judgment means that the government cannot force Catholic employers who are members of the CBA to provide the mandate CASC coverage.  The decision also declares the CASC Mandate is illegal as applied to CBA members.

While an injunction stops the federal government from enforcing the CASC Mandate against CBA members, the declaratory judgment speaks directly to the illegality of what the federal government has been trying to do to CBA members for years.  The court stated that the federal government “violated RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)” by trying to coerce members into providing CASC services.

Four years ago, the CBA challenged the Department of Health and Human Services’ mandate (HHS mandate) in the district court claiming that the mandates were in direct conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Two federal lawsuits were filed in 2014 by the CBA who represents over 1,000 Catholic employers.  The goal was to protect Catholic employers from federal government mandates that sought to force Catholic employers to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs – a goal that was achieved with this recent ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge David Russell ruled that his decision is permanent.  The court’s injunction binds not only the current administration but future administrations, protecting CBA members from any other regulation in the future that tries to use the “women’s preventive services mandate” to force CBA members to violate their conscience.

“This is the tremendous win,” said Douglas G. Wilson, the CBA’s Chief Executive Officer. “The first freedom in the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The court has rightly ruled that employers should not be forced to violate their beliefs and cover morally problematic elective and often low-cost choices that individuals may wish to make.”

My guess is: You didn’t hear or read about this ruling in your mainstream media outlets.  Wonder why?

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

When Speculative Smears are Treated as Truths

When the hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe program asked why President Trump had congratulated Russian president Vladimir Putin on being reelected, former CIA director John Brennan pulled no punches.  In answering the question that implied Trump may be afraid of Putin, Brennan said, “The Russians may have something on him personally.”  The Russians, he said, “have had long experience of Mr. Trump, and may have things they could expose.”

If it were anyone else we would dismiss it as a partisan cheap shot; but coming as it did from a career intelligence officer who served for 4-years as the head of the American intelligence establishment, this had to be more than a baseless conjecture.

By the end of the day, Brennan admitted his wild charge was not based on any actual information or intelligence revealed to him during the course of his duties but just a willingness to assume the worst about Trump.  In a written response to questions from the New York Times, he said, “I do not know if the Russians have something on Donald Trump that they could use as blackmail.”

In a world in which journalists treated unfounded assumptions as just that, rather than headline news, Brennan’s charges would have been dismissed.  But though the Times knew the accusation was baseless by the time it published its article on the subject, the paper buried the lead.  The headline on the story was “Ex-Chief of the C.I.A. Suggests Putin May Have Compromising Information on Trump.”  Brennan’s walking back of his charge didn’t appear until the eleventh paragraph of the story.

This encapsulates most of the media’s coverage of the entire Russian-collusion investigation over the last year, in which speculation about Trump’s guilt is always assumed to be true even if proof is never forthcoming.

The case of the Brennan smear is, however, instructive in that it shows how coverage of Trump and Russia works.  When Brennan spoke of the Russians’ having something on Trump, not one member of the panel asked the former Obama staffer whether his opinion was rooted in actual knowledge rather than pure speculation.  Nor did many others ask that question over the course of a day in which Brennan’s comment was among the most discussed stories.  That fits a pattern that applies to every stage of the Russian-collusion investigation.

More than a year into the Trump presidency and the appointment of Robert Mueller to lead a special investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, information about the subject is still scarce.  Speculation about the dearth of knowledge regarding what happened or what exactly Mueller has discovered is understandable.  But in most of the media, that lack of information hasn’t stopped both reporters and commentators from jumping to conclusions about Trump’s being in big trouble every time even the smallest tidbit about the probe is aired.  Until Mueller finishes his work and issues a report, we won’t know what he has found.

What we do know is that President Trump does appear to have a soft spot for the Putin regime and seems unwilling to listen to the counsel of those who urge him to be more guarded in his statements about the subject.  Is that enough, as Brennan seems to think, to fuel a charge that he might be under some sort of pressure from Russia?  The obvious answer is no.  Trump has been consistent throughout his campaign about believing in better relations with Russia and for his lack of outrage about its foreign mischief making.

Yet you don’t have to be a Russian agent of influence to back policies or gestures that are favorable to Putin.  After all, President Obama made the same foolish gesture for which Trump has been lambasted: calling to congratulate the authoritarian leader after winning a rigged election in which his victory was foreordained.  Obama began his first term with a comical effort to “reset” relations and continued to defend Russia.  Obama mocked Mitt Romney for declaring Russia to be America’s prime geostrategic foe in their 2012 foreign-policy debate.  Don’t forget the infamous hot-mic moment, when Obama told Putin’s puppet Dmitry Medvedev to tell “Vladimir” that he [Obama] could be more “flexible” in bowing to Russian demands after he was reelected.

None of that constituted proof that Obama was in thrall to Putin.  His belief in showing weakness to Russia was sincere.  But Trump’s sporadic continuation of this imprudent policy — for which Brennan was at least partially responsible — is assumed without proof as being prima facie evidence of treason, even though Trump has also done some things, such as his arming of Ukraine, to offend Putin.

Theoretically, Brennan could be right; but to assume without proof that the only possible motive for a policy choice is a criminal connection isn’t journalism.  At best, it’s a highly partisan talking point.  At worst, it’s a smear.

It used to be that partisan assumptions fueled by pure speculation and unaccompanied by proof didn’t pass the ‘smell test’ at any major network or newspaper.  The fact that political smears of this sort have now become not only possible but also normal says a lot about the way animus for the Trump Administration has distorted much of the media’s judgment and coverage.

If liberals want to know why conservatives no longer trust the mainstream media about Trump even when the facts are on their side, they need look no further than the way the media covered Brennan’s unfounded accusation.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

POTUS Orders Ban on Transgender Troops

Last week, President (POTUS) Donald Trump issued a new executive order barring most transgender individuals from serving in the military.

Late last July 2017, Trump announced he would direct the military to stop allowing transgender individuals “to serve in any capacity.”  He cited the need for military policy to focus on effectiveness, which the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of accommodating transgender troops would derail.  He gave the military 6-months to prepare for the policy change.

The latest memorandum says that the policy will disqualify from service “transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria,” specifically those who “may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery,” except in “certain limited circumstances.”  The POTUS finalized the policy in consultation with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.  In a statement, the White House said that “extensive study by senior uniformed and civilian leaders, including combat veterans,” informed Mattis’ recommendation, which was that troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria presented “considerable risk to military effectiveness and lethality.”

A memo from Mattis further notes that the Obama Administration justified permitting transgender service by citing a RAND National Defense Research Institute study with “significant shortcomings.”  The RAND study, he said, “referred to limited and heavily caveated data to support its conclusions, glossed over the impacts of healthcare costs, readiness, and unit cohesion, and erroneously relied on the selective experiences of foreign militaries with different operational requirements than our own.”  Mattis’ memo also detailed exceptions to the policy.  Those with a diagnosis can still serve if they “have been stable for 36 consecutive months in their biological sex prior to accession,” if they can meet deployability and retention standards without changing genders, and if they are already-serving soldiers diagnosed prior to the new policy’s implementation.  Transgender soldiers without a gender dysphoria diagnosis may also continue to serve, although they will be expected to do so in their biological sex.

“The armed forces are not a petri dish for social experimentation, nor is military service a guaranteed right,” Heritage Foundation defense expert and retired Lieutenant General Tom Spoehr said in response to the news.  Rather, “our military is the first line of defense for America’s own unique experiment in liberty.”  He added that the Pentagon should be able to make case-by-case exceptions for already-serving soldiers.

As expected, the new policy was promptly assailed by congressional Democrats, civil rights groups, and the pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi claimed the ban’s purpose was to “humiliate our brave transgender members of the military.”  Matt Thorn, president of pro-LGBT military group OutServe-SLDN, claimed it was “riddled with blatant animus, bigotry, and ignorance.”

However, when Trump originally announced the change, former Army drill instructor John Burk defended it in a viral video.  Burk noted that depression, anxiety, color-blindness, and a “whole slew” of other conditions also render people ineligible for military service without claims of discrimination.  He also pointed out that transgender individuals suffer higher suicide rates and that the American Psychological Association recognizes gender dysphoria as a psychological disorder.  “The military is not a social experiment for a very small demographic of people that want to enlist,” Burk said. “You cannot change the course of how the entire organization works.”

The RAND study criticized by Mattis claims as many as 6,630 out of 1.3 million active-duty troops may be transgendered, but a defense official told ABC News in July the actual number of troops identified as such is in the “low hundreds.”

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says while the Trump Administration has taken a big step to eliminate political correctness in the military, more steps still need to be taken.  “The federal judges still are running the military – and you can see the difficulties here because of the court orders.  It’s almost a bifurcated policy now,” she explains.

It is not yet known when the new policy will take effect.  The Los Angeles Times notes that four federal district judges have issued orders blocking implementation of the ban.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Student Hype for School Shootings is Statistical Senseless

Question: How many people have been killed in school shootings in the United States since 1900?

Answer: 552 … according to a comprehensive list compiled by Wikipedia.  Assuming this isn’t wildly inaccurate, 4.7-people have been killed in school shootings per year in modern American history.

Question: Do you know how unlikely it is that you’ll be killed in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil? 

Answer: If you don’t count 9/11 (which killed 2,996 people), the odds that you are going to die in an Islamic terrorist attack are extremely low at 6-people killed per year.

Since March of 1998, there have been 298-people killed in school shootings in the U.S., or 14.9-deaths a year.  Put another way, in a typical year in the U.S. in the past 2-decades, 35-states would not even have a single school shooting death, while the other 15-states would have only one.

Of course, one is too many; but this is hardly the national epidemic of school-related violence that the 2nd Amendment-hating Left and partisan Hollywood celebrity supporters would make it out to be.

The young people of the “March for Our Lives” claimed that “they are going to be the kids you read about in the history books” because they are going to end gun violence in schools.  But how, exactly, are they going to do that?  To physically keep guns out of schools would require that schools lock all first-floor windows (at all times) and have metal detectors at all entrances (during school hours).  We could do that, but it would be an incredible inconvenience in order to prevent against the extremely unlikely.  

A cost-benefit analysis would reveal its impracticality.  Given that over the past 118-years, 4.7-people per year have died at the hands of school shootings, and 14.9-deaths per year over the past 20-years, perhaps there are more serious issues that they should worry about.

What are the biggest killers in the U.S., and to what degree are these deaths preventable?  

Heart disease kills an estimated 614,348-people per year.  

Cancer comes in second at 591,699-deaths per year.  

Chronic lower respiratory diseases (including emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma) are third, at 147,101-people a year.  

Accidents kill about 136,000-people per year.  

Strokes kill 133,033-people. 

Needless to say, these figures vastly exceed the death toll from school shootings, mass shootings, and gun violence in general.  

A typical year in the U.S. usually records 33,000 gun-related deaths – two-thirds of which are suicides.  The 12,000 gun-related homicides a year are, unsurprisingly, heavily concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods afflicted by drugs, gangs, and crime.

What is tragic is that these health-related scourges on society can often be prevented and avoided through personal responsibility and changes in behavior.  Their prevalence is statistically correlated with a whole host of lifestyle factors: a poor diet, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, a sedentary lifestyle, smoking, fast food, processed foods, lack of exercise, excessive television watching.

So, yes, angry young men who shoot up schools are a serious problem; yet, the idea that they pose the gravest clear and present danger to the safety of America is preposterous. The American public should really be directing its attention to ensuring that we live healthier lives; not worrying about the astronomical odds of being involved in a school shooting.  When it comes to tragically preventable deaths, one can make a compelling case that smoking, soft drinks, refined sugars, fast food, processed food, office work, and Netflix are far more dangerous to our well-being than guns or school shooters.  

Our public policy should be driven by data and facts, not opinions and hysteria.

The next argument that liberals love to make: School shootings only happen in the U.S. That’s nonsense.  Even the most cursory examination of the data shows that it is a global problem, including in countries with stricter gun control laws.  This is a classic example of an attempt to base public policy on hysteria-driven sensationalized media coverage.

Listen liberals: If it is wrong for Trump supporters to call for sweeping anti-Muslim public policy every time a Muslim commits a terrorist attack, it is equally wrong to blame the right to keep and bear arms, and those who peacefully exercise it, for school shootings.

Another important point, if we’re going to talk about history’s greatest killers, they have been tyrannical governments (mostly Communist ones).  

The students involved in the “March for Our Lives” may have spoken from the heart; but they also appear to have no understanding of how private gun ownership has played a pivotal role in securing personal liberty in the face of government tyranny.  Don't expect, however, the mainstream media to challenge the narrative of these kids standing up to the NRA.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel