The Abortion Lobby Is Coming

Christians from countries that are safely pro-life now cannot presume they will stay that way, says pro-life campaigner Dr. Calum Miller.

Miller, an apologist and research fellow in bioethics at the University of Oxford, delivered a sobering assessment of the enormous strides made by the abortion movement globally in the last few decades in a recent address to the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) general assembly.  He warned that even in socially conservative countries, or majority Christian, attitudes are rapidly changing.  One example of this is the Philippines, where research on young people that he was involved in last year found that 70% support legalizing abortion.

In the 11 years between the WEA’s 2008 general assembly in Thailand and its following global gathering in Indonesia in 2019, he noted that some 27 countries had liberalized their abortion laws. One of them was Ireland, where, in 2013, only a third of the population said they supported abortion. Just five years later, two-thirds of the population voted to legalize it, including 85% of young people.

“This rapid generational shift is coming for the Global South as well,” Miller said, warning that the liberalizing trend was spreading at a “frightening pace in every region across the world.”  “You might think that your country is a strongly conservative, Christian country, but the likely reality is that millions of dollars are pouring into your country to pressure your legislators and your young people to promote abortion,” he said.

Just some of the countries under pressure to loosen their abortion laws are Nigeria, Poland, Chile, Brazil, Haiti and Liberia.

The WEA’s general assembly took place across five days at SaRang Church in the South Korean capital of Seoul.  Miller said it was sobering to meet in the country with the lowest birth rate in the world and at a time when its legislators were pushing for the legalization of abortion up to birth.  “Whether you live in the most conservative or the most liberal country in the world, this is something that will destroy the future of all of our countries,” he said.  “Outside of Africa and the Pacific Islands, almost no countries have enough children even to survive.”

He said he was praying that Evangelicals would work together toward “a profound moment of change, a moment for the people of God to choose life, not only in our own lives and in our churches but for our nations as well.”

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

Christians Fight Back in the UK

Christian leaders across the United Kingdom (UK) are sounding the alarm as government policies threaten to silence biblical truth and erase the nation’s Christian foundation.  The issue at hand this time is a proposed ban on “conversion therapy” – a term for helping someone get rid of unwanted same-sex attraction.

In an open letter to Equalities Minister Olivia Bailey, twenty-four church leaders boldly argued that the draft law could criminalize prayer, pastoral care, and even sharing the gospel.  “[The proposed ban implies] that merely expressing Christian beliefs on sexuality and gender in prayer and pastoral conversations constitutes ‘conversion therapy’ and should be outlawed,” the leaders state.

The government has promised to push this ban through as a top priority, but critics say it’s proving impossible to draft a bill that accomplishes what they see as protection for LGBT people while simultaneously upholding basic religious freedoms.  Church leaders fear the legislation would leave parents and pastors vulnerable to prosecution for simply sharing the Bible’s stance on issues of sexuality and identity.

As political leaders debate how far to go in restricting faith-based counseling, Christian theologians and public figures are calling believers to take a stand for truth.  Dozens of Christian leaders gathered in London to sign the 2025 Westminster Declaration, a bold manifesto urging the “re-Christianisation of Britain.”  The declaration defends freedom of belief, the sanctity of human life, and the biblical understanding of sex and family.

The appeal is essentially a call for the return to Britain’s Christian heritage.  The document is meant to provide “moral clarity to public life in the UK … and core conviction on life, marriage and family, education, and the common good.”  It also warns that by abandoning Christian foundations, Britain has “endangered human life, weakened society, and created a fragmented nation uncoupled from its formative traditions.”

Fiona Bruce is a former government envoy for religious freedom and a member of the 2025 Westminster Declaration launch committee.  She described UK’s situation as a spiritual battle and is eager to see young Christians enter politics—not just to resist moral decline, but to bring biblical truth back into the nation’s conscience.  Bruce’s ultimate goal? To “see Christian principles brought back into society, and society changed.”

Former BBC journalist Robin Aitken hopes the declaration will turn the UK back to Christ. “What today is about is nothing less than the re-Christianisation of Britain … If that sounds ambitious, it is.  There has never been and will never be a better blueprint for human flourishing and happiness than the rules laid out for us by God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.”

These two developments reveal the sharp divide in Britain today: one side seeking to silence biblical truth in the name of tolerance, and the other boldly proclaiming that the Gospel is still the only hope for a lost nation.

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

Liberal Protestant Churches Proclaim “Holiness” of Transgenderism

Several liberal Protestant and Jewish denominations recently declared transgenderism “holy” in direct rebuke of a vote by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to bar transgender procedures in Catholic healthcare facilities.

“During a time when our country is placing their lives under increasingly serious threat, there is a disgraceful misconception that all people of faith do not affirm the full spectrum of gender — a great many of us do,” read the statement which included signatures of leaders from the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ (UCC), the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Union for Reform Judaism, an association of Quakers and others.

“Let it be known instead that our beloveds are created in the image of God — Holy and whole,” the statement said of transgender-identifying individuals.

“Our scriptures vary, but they share a common conviction,” the statement continued.  “As we make justice our aim, we must give voice to those who are silenced.  Our shared values, held across many faiths, teach us that we are all children of God and that we must cultivate a discipline of hope, especially in difficult times.”

The statement went on to suggest that opposing transgenderism is sinful, reiterating the belief that transgender, nonbinary and intersex individuals are intrinsically holy, which is the only attribute of God magnified to the third degree of repetition in the Bible.

“As such, we raise our voices in solidarity to unequivocally proclaim the holiness of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people, as well as the recognition of the entire spectrum of gender identity and expression,” the statement said.

“When people of faith and conscience stay silent in the face of oppression, we are all made less whole. When people of faith and conscience speak out against that which violates the sacred in its own name, we have the power to stay the hand of sin.”

“Transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are vulnerable today.  Our faiths, our theologies, and our practices of prophetic witness call on us to say with one voice to transgender people among us: ‘You are holy.  You are sacred.  We love you.  We support you, and we will protect you.’ ”

According to a press release, the statement was primarily penned by the Rev. Sofía Betancourt, who represents the Unitarian Universalist Association, a belief system that emerged in the 19th century from a denial of the Trinity, original sin, and damnation.  Betancourt identifies “as a queer, multiracial, AfroLatine [sic] first-generation daughter of immigrants from Chile and Panamá,” and has taught at Yale Divinity School, according to her biography.  Her courses focus on “ministerial leadership, theologies, womanism and Earth justice, and combatting [sic] oppression.”

The statement from the liberal religious leaders came in response to U.S. Catholic bishops effectively banning transgender procedures at Catholic hospitals by overwhelmingly approving revisions to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, which govern the extensive network of Catholic healthcare facilities nationwide.

The vote came after years of deliberation and builds on prior Vatican guidance, as well as a 2023 USCCB doctrinal note titled “Moral Limits to the Technological Manipulation of the Human Body.”  The note outlined moral limits on body-altering technologies, drawing on Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia and the Vatican’s Dignitas Infinita, which affirmed human dignity.

“Catholic health care services must not perform interventions, whether surgical or chemical, that aim to transform the sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex, or take part in the development of such procedures,” the bishops said in the 2023 doctrinal note.

More than one in seven patients in the U.S. is treated at a Catholic hospital, especially in rural areas, according to the Catholic Health Association.

During public discussion over the directives, Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, who chairs the USCCB’s Committee on Laity, Family, Youth, and Young Adults, emphasized the moral gravity of the decision before the prelates. “With regard to the gender ideology, I think it’s very important the church makes a strong statement here,” he said, according to The Associated Press.

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

Why We Cannot “Agree to Disagree” With the Left

Jeffrey Trimbath who serves as President of the Maryland Family Institute, sat next to a successful business leader at a dinner recently.  Their conversation turned to the bitterly divided nature of our politics and culture.  He lamented this polarization, and the often mean and disrespectful ways people treat each other, especially online.

“I’ve never engaged in social media,” he proclaimed proudly, as if abstaining were the solution to our national malaise.  He also fondly looked back at Ronald Reagan as the example of a statesman who adhered to principle whilst engaging opponents.  At the twilight of his career, this businessman longed for a more bipartisan and congenial past.

I share his respect for civility.  Treating others with dignity is essential, rooted in the truth that every person is created in the image and likeness of God, and is therefore worthy of respect.  That divine image, no matter how marred by sin, grounds our commitment to due process, equal justice, and legal representation for all.

But civility, while necessary, is not sufficient.  Why?  Two reasons:

First, our worldviews are now profoundly incompatible.  As John Stonestreet has observed, we often describe the same issue in completely opposite terms.  The other side calls it “gender-affirming care,” but we call it mutilation.  The other side calls it “reproductive health,” but we call it the killing of an innocent unborn human life.  Our side prizes colorblind meritocracy; the other side dismisses it as privilege.  These differences aren’t minor policy disputes or disagreements.  These are issues in opposing moral universes.  These are not objective moral positions with room for compromise.  How can we “agree to disagree” when one side says the sky is blue and the other insists it’s green?  With our differences so binary, it's hard to imagine we can even say that we can “agree to disagree.”

Second, objective truth itself has been replaced by identity and emotion.  Shortly before his passing, theologian Voddie Baucham noted that we no longer argue from philosophy or moral reasoning, but from “lived experience.”  To question someone’s beliefs or otherwise subjective opinions is now seen as questioning their very identity.

Saying that transgenderism is wrong now earns you the label “transphobic” and is deemed unworthy of engagement.  And in this new moral calculus, words that offend identity are treated as “violence,” justifying real violence in response.  Responding to them with real violence becomes logical and justified.  The latest example of this, of course, is Charlie Kirk, whose alleged murderer confessed his motivation for committing the act was to silence a viewpoint that he deemed “hatred.”  He said, “some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

And in the U.K., it is now against the law to pray silently outside an abortion clinic; officials view even quiet prayer as a threat to women.

No amount of civility can bridge this divide.  Only redemption and revival can.

God’s people need a spiritual revival that gives them the courage to speak the objective truth, love enemies, and hold conviction over social and personal comfort.

So how do we move forward?

First, reject the myth that civility alone can heal our culture.  It’s often used as a weapon to shame Christians into silence.  Yes, we must speak truth in love, but biblical love compels us to speak objective truth, not to suppress it.

Second, civility is good.  But courage and truth are better.  Christ-followers should not believe that politeness alone can heal our culture.  Many use civility as a tool to silence people of faith.  We must speak truth with love because real love never hides the truth.

This conflict is spiritual, not only cultural.  Jesus told us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.  There are actual enemies of the Christian faith who want to see us silenced, either temporarily or permanently.

Yes, we face real opposition.  But we do not need to fear it.  God calls us to stand firm, speak truth clearly, and live faithfully according to His Word.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Wisconsin Seeks to End Religious Tax Exemption

Wisconsin is looking to eliminate a religious tax exemption altogether rather than grant one to a Catholic charity organization that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in June could not be denied the benefit.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a remedial brief the other week before the state supreme court in relation to the case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau, writing that the U.S. Supreme Court "did not prescribe a particular remedy" when siding with the charity earlier in June over its bid for an exemption from the state's unemployment insurance program.

Kaul, a Democrat, argued that only two options were available: "expanding the statutory exemption to groups like Catholic Charities" or "eliminating it altogether."  "And over the past 50 years, the Legislature has consistently expanded the universe of nonprofit employers that must participate in the unemployment system. Enlarging this exemption would reverse that trend," he stated.  "By striking the exemption, this Court can avoid collateral damage to Wisconsin workers while still curing the discrimination the U.S. Supreme Court identified.  It should so hold, thereby bringing this long-running case to a close."

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor Review Commission et al. that the Catholic charity group can be exempted from an unemployment insurance program even though the state deemed its services nonreligious.  The decision vacated an earlier ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and sent the case back to the lower court level for further deliberation.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is helping to represent Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB), filed a supplemental brief denouncing the request to remove the tax exemption fully, arguing that “Wisconsin long ago forfeited any claim to request that Catholic Charities' remedy be anything other than receiving the exemption.”

“Wisconsin should have raised that issue well before reversal and remand by the United States Supreme Court,” the supplemental brief states.  “It should have made those arguments in a timely fashion so that this Court and the United States Supreme Court had an opportunity to evaluate them.”

CCB is an umbrella organization comprising multiple charitable groups within the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior.

In 2016, CCB asked the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (WDWD) for a religious exemption from paying into Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program.

WDWD declined the request, arguing that the Catholic group was not primarily religious in nature. CCB appealed to an administrative law judge, who reversed the earlier ruling.  The department then petitioned the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, which ruled against CCB, arguing that they did not qualify for a religious exemption.

In March 2024, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that CCB was “not operated primarily for religious purposes” and therefore ineligible for the religious exemption.  “CCB and the sub-entities, which are organized as separate corporations apart from the church itself, neither attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees,” wrote Justice Ann Walsh Bradley for the majority.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of CCB, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor authoring the court’s opinion, which concluded that the Catholic charity could not be denied the exemption because its work was considered secular.  Sotomayor noted that any “law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination” and that “differentiation on theological lines is fundamentally foreign to our constitutional order.”

“It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion,’ ” wrote Sotomayor.  “There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

At What Age Is It Morally Permissible to Kill the Unborn?

The question is, of course, is not serious.  It illustrates an important point.  Whatever else it is, an abortion is the killing of a child, usually with the consent of the mother, and often of the father.

Some people think that it’s okay to have an abortion because the unborn baby is merely a mass of cells.  Apparently, they think that the massy blob of cells magically becomes a baby when it is born. Because of modern technology, we can now see that the unborn baby is much more than just a blob of cells; it has a human structure from the beginning. This has affected some people’s thinking on the issue.  However, even if it were the case that unborn babies were just a mass of cells that magically transformed into a baby at birth, this would not change the fact that this human being is someone’s child.

Others seem to think that it is okay to have an abortion when the baby is young, but at some point, it becomes murder and should be banned.  Indeed, many people believe this.  

Well, I will argue that because the baby is a human being and the child of the mother and father, it is wrong to kill him/her at any time.

It is sometimes argued that killing an unborn baby is not homicide, because it is not a person.  Whether that is true or false depends upon how the word “person” is defined.  If we take the view that a person is someone with the ability to reason, then unborn babies, born babies at the earlier stages of development, some people in comas, and people in an advanced stage of Alzheimer’s are not persons. If we count a person as being a member of the human species that is in the normal process of development, then our unborn babies are persons.  But whether we count an unborn baby as a person or not, it is indisputably a human being.

With the “not a person” argument, the question then becomes, “at what stage is a human being considered a person?  Therefore, up to which point would it be morally permissible to kill a human being?”

A “human being” is different from merely being human.  A person’s hair is human, as is a skin tag. Every cell in a human being’s body is human.  But the individual cells are not human beings.

When the abortion controversy began in earnest about 65 or so years ago, it was sometimes said that abortions would be legal only in the so-called hard cases, like deformity, rape, and so on.  Some years later, it was sometimes said that it would be legal only during the first months of pregnancy, and that no one was thinking about making it legal in the later months.  At present, abortion on demand is legal in some states, until the moment of birth.  Once the principle is established that it is okay to kill an innocent human being, it becomes increasingly difficult to declare a definite time for when it is wrong to kill.

When thinking about abortion, people seem to have one of two different intuitive reactions to it.  One is to think that the unborn baby at some stage is not developed enough, and that therefore there is nothing morally wrong in killing it.  People with this intuition consider themselves “pro-choice.”  Many of this group would agree that at some point in the pregnancy, it becomes morally wrong to kill the unborn baby.  Others will perhaps think that there is no wrongness in killing delivered infants up to some stages of development after birth.

People with the other intuitive reaction are known as anti-abortionists, or pro-lifers.  They believe that the baby in utero is a human being and that, therefore, it is morally wrong to kill him/her no matter what his/her state of development is, except perhaps for some extreme set of circumstances, in which case it is at best just the lesser of evils.

It cannot be that both intuitions are right.  Either the pro-choice stance is wrong, or the pro-life stance is.

There may be two different strategies that the pro-abortionist may take in attempting to justify killing unborn babies.  One is to say that the more developed a baby is, the less plausible or acceptable it is to kill it.  The other approach is that there is some point of change in the baby that justifies the permissibility of killing it.  Neither argument succeeds.

Regarding the first, the general idea is that a human being’s value increases with development.  As a newly fertilized egg, it has low value.  The value increases with the growth of the baby, becoming more valuable as the fetus grows and develops, until the point at which it is born.  The value increases in life, until in old age, when it decreases as the person loses different abilities.  Thus, we see a demand for abortion, killing unborn babies, and euthanasia — the killing of old people and the seriously ill and handicapped.  This is reminiscent of Hitler’s extermination of the infirm and handicapped.

There are, clearly, several problems with this view.  Here, I wish to show that there is a confusion of “value” as it relates to the intrinsic value of a human being.  First, even granting for the sake of argument that people gradually accrue some sort of value with development and the gaining of abilities, there is, in a deeper sense, the value that they have from being human.  Each person is still one being, one human being, from beginning to end.  How does one determine the notion that, at some point in this growth, there is a time when killing this human being is morally permissible?  Simply put, one can’t.  Some countries or states have laws that permit abortion up to a certain period, like 5 months or some other gestational age.  Yet assigning such a time element is arbitrary. For example, take 5 months.  The day before the 6-month mark, the baby is just as much a living human being as he/she is one day later.  At this one point, this one day, the situation passes from permissible homicide to impermissible.  Just the passage of time and the growth of the individual give no clue as to when the “value” changes such that terminating a life becomes murder.  It is absurd to say, for example, that at 3 months and 16 days it is okay to kill the baby, but at 3 months and 17 days it is not.  Even if there were some such time, it is impossible for us to know it, and hence all such permissions and restrictions are arbitrary.  At every stage of development, the baby is still a human being and the mother’s and father’s child.

Some advocates of the permissibility of abortion say that at some point, the baby has some attribute that is a dividing line between abortion’s being morally permissible or not. Allowing abortion up to the moment of birth is the same state of affairs.  A baby an hour before birth is not essentially different than a baby one hour after birth.  Yet in some areas, such as Michigan, it is lawful to kill the unborn, yet killing it after it is born is first-degree murder.  This thinking apparently makes sense to some people. Nevertheless, here we also see a movement to legalize infanticide, at least in some cases. Regardless, in all these cases, what is being done is the deliberate destruction of a human being.

Suppose one takes the view that it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn baby up to one point in development, where some sort of change occurs.  When is the stopping point, and how can one know what it is?  Several other defining qualities have been proposed besides “reason.”  One is viability — that it is wrong to kill the baby only when it can live outside the womb.  Besides the fact that determining if a baby can survive outside its mother’s womb is dependent upon the technology available, there is no reason for viability to be the stopping point.  What does this have to do with whether or not the baby is a human being?  The definition of being human does not depend upon being able to survive on one’s own.

The baby’s life is on a continuum, where there is steady growth.  At any point where there is a change in the being of the baby, it is still on a continuum of life.  Even when a major change occurs in the development of the baby, it is still the baby, a living human being, that is undergoing the change.

Another idea is that abortion is permissible until the time that the baby becomes conscious. However, we do not know when consciousness exists in an unborn baby, though at some stage of development, consciousness seems obvious.  Besides the fact that we do not know when the baby becomes conscious, and may never know, why is consciousness the stopping point for permissible abortions? The question of relevance is still there.  This is like the notion that abortion is only wrong if the baby can reason.  The question is, why is being conscious, at whatever level, the key to permissible abortion? How do we know that the baby has or has not some level of consciousness after conception? Nowadays, it seems that panpsychism, the view that fundamental physical objects are conscious, is becoming more popular.  If an electron or a quark can be thought of as being conscious, why not an embryo?  Indeed, the embryo seems much more plausible.

There is no necessity in drawing the dividing line at “consciousness,” any more than “reason” as the dividing line.  Whatever state the unborn baby is in, it is still that person. Human beings are creatures made up of a body and mind, or soul.  Our bodies are part of who we are.

It seems quite plausible that reacting to feeling pain shows consciousness.  Unborn babies are seen on ultrasound to avoid the probes during abortions.  They evidently feel pain.  However, even if there were no signs that the baby feels pain, this does not mean that he/she doesn’t feel pain, or that it is completely unconscious.  It is strange that there is uproar over cruelty to animals, or using fetal pigs for science classes, but many of those same objecting people feel nothing is wrong with terminating a human life in utero.

Other proposed points fare no better.  No matter what, an unborn baby is still a human being, and a child with two parents.  Already in the DNA, there are many genes determining the child’s personality, what color hair he/she will have, his/her ability to play sports, or to do mathematics.  Yes, the environment certainly has an impact too, but environmental factors work on what is there in the genes.

We are all conceived with inborn capacities.  It is a tragedy that for many, their capacity will never be realized.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

“Radical Islam” Massacres Christians

Evangelist Franklin Graham condemned the face of “radical Islam” in Sudan after receiving videos showing paramilitary fighters executing civilians following their capture of the city of el-Fasher.  Graham said the footage, which includes people being shot in the head and “piles of bodies,” was too graphic to share publicly.

Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), seized el-Fasher last week, taking control of the last government-held city in Darfur after a months-long siege, The AP reported.  The RSF had already expelled Sudanese army troops from the region in recent weeks, marking a new stage in a war that has killed more than 40,000 people and displaced over 14 million.  The Sudanese government reported that more than 2,000 civilians were killed since RSF entered the city.

“This is the face of radical Islam.  We’ve been working in Sudan for over 30 years, and our hearts break for this country,” Graham, the president of Samaritan’s Purse and son of the late Rev. Billy Graham, wrote on Facebook, calling on people to pray for civilians being “murdered as you read this.”  Graham claimed RSF fighters were “just killing for the sake of killing,” calling the group’s actions evidence of radical Islam.  “A massacre is taking place in Sudan, and the world has pretty much ignored it,” he wrote.

Videos show RSF fighters carrying out executions in and around el-Fasher after taking the city from the Sudanese Armed Forces, according to the BBC, which said its reporters had verified the videos.  One clip, geolocated to a university building, showed an armed man in RSF attire shooting an unarmed man sitting among dozens of corpses.  Another video showed a fighter known as Abu Lulu opening fire on nine unarmed captives with other RSF members cheering.  BBC Verify reported that several of the executions appeared to take place outside the city, in sandy rural areas with few landmarks, but at least one video was verified to be inside el-Fasher.

Satellite images reviewed by the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab appeared to confirm the aftermath of mass killings, showing body-sized clusters in areas of the city not previously disturbed.

The United Nations coordinator for Sudan, Denise Brown, told the BBC she had received “credible reports of summary executions” of unarmed men in el-Fasher following the RSF’s entry.  Killings of unarmed civilians or surrendering combatants violate the Geneva Convention and are classified as war crimes.

The United Kingdom-based Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) is calling for “urgent international action” amid reports of civilian atrocities.  “The images and reporting emerging from El Fasher are horrific,” CSW’s Founder President Mervyn Thomas said in a statement.  “Images of RSF fighters humiliating, torturing and killing civilians are just a snapshot of the devastating violence that civilians in El Fasher have been enduring for the past 18 months and are now being subjected to without any protection.  We are also deeply disturbed by the number of RSF fighters who appear to be children recruited to perpetrate unimaginable violence.  CSW calls on the international community to ensure the protection of Tawila, where many have fled, and to insist on unhindered humanitarian access to the region.”

The RSF, led by Gen. Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti, emerged from the Janjaweed militia that terrorized non-Arab populations in the Darfur genocide during the early 2000s.  The militia’s founder, Sudan’s former President Omar al-Bashir, was indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide in 2009, the AP reported.  Dagalo, a native of Darfur from an Arab camel-trading family, expanded the RSF by incorporating Arab militias and financing the group through livestock and gold mining.  His forces grew to an estimated 100,000 fighters and took part in conflicts in Yemen and Libya, often with backing from Gulf nations, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The Sudanese army has filed a case at the International Court of Justice accusing the UAE of breaching the Genocide Convention by supporting the RSF.  The UAE rejected the case as a “publicity stunt.”  The army also accused Libyan commander Khalifa Haftar of aiding the RSF with weapons and troops.

Since the fall of al-Bashir in 2019, Dagalo has acted as a central power broker in Sudan, including playing a leading role in a military coup and the collapse of a transitional government.  The current war began in 2023 after the breakdown of a fragile alliance between Dagalo’s RSF and Sudanese army chief Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan.  Both factions have replenished their ranks using foreign weapons and fighters.  The RSF has launched drone strikes on army positions across Sudan using technology sourced from countries such as Turkey, China, Iran, and Russia.

The RSF’s latest offensive into Darfur has stoked fears of Sudan’s disintegration.  The group has declared its intention to form a parallel government in the areas under its control, including large parts of Darfur and Kordofan.  The RSF had previously retreated from Khartoum, Sudan’s capital, but resumed attacks there earlier this year.

As of last week, the Sudanese army controls most of the country’s north and east, including Khartoum, while the RSF holds nearly all of Darfur and parts of Kordofan.  The RSF’s predecessor, the Janjaweed, committed mass killings in the same region between 2003 and 2005, and many of those fighters are believed to have joined the current force, BBC reported.

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

The Worst States at Protecting Religious Freedom

A new report highlights which states have laws and policies on the books that are the friendliest and most hostile to faith-based nonprofits.  The Napa Legal Institute (NLI) released its 2025 Faith and Freedom Index the other week.  The report ranks each state on a scale of 0-100 based on its protections for religious nonprofit organizations.  The overall score is based on a state’s “religious freedom score” and its “regulatory freedom score.”  Senior Counsel and NLI Director of Content Frank DeVito said the index is a “powerful tool for lawmakers to see where they must add protections, strengthen existing state laws, or repeal harmful state laws.”

A state’s religious freedom score is determined by several factors, such as the presence or absence of state constitutional protection of free exercise, whether the state has passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, religious freedom conditions for nonprofits with public programming, religious freedom conditions for faith-based employers, protections for religious exercise during a state emergency and state Blaine Amendments.

The states that ranked lowest in religious freedom were Michigan (22%), Vermont (23%), Delaware (25%), Washington (26%), and Maryland (27%).

In a statement reacting to the 2025 Faith and Freedom Index's release, the NLI singled out Michigan and Washington as states that “over-burden and are even hostile towards faith-based nonprofits.”

On the other hand, Alabama (86%) and Kansas (79%) scored the highest in the religious freedom category.  Other states that rounded out the top five in religious freedom were Mississippi (67%), Georgia (67%), and Florida (63%).  The NLI praised Alabama and Kansas for their “exemplary protections for faith-based nonprofits that other states should emulate.”

“The many religious freedom attacks over the past few years are chilling reminders that without staunch state level protections for religious freedom, ordinary Americans will suffer, regardless of how supportive the current Administration may be,” said DeVito. “Too many Americans have been forced to spend precious time and money litigating issues that should never have gone to court in the first place.”

In the regulatory freedom category, Indiana and Montana had the highest scores of 82% and 80%, respectively.  Iowa (79%) and Arizona (77%) also secured spots in the top five, while Texas (76%) and Wyoming (76%) were tied for fifth place.  At the other end of the spectrum, Illinois ranked last with a regulatory freedom score of 40%.  Other states that ranked near the bottom in this category were Michigan (45%), Massachusetts (48%), South Dakota (49%) and Washington (49%).

State regulatory freedom scores are also determined by several factors, like the state's nonprofit religious corporation law, prior notice and consent requirements for major corporate actions, standards of conduct for directors of religious organizations, charitable registration law, audit requirements pursuant to charitable registration, corporate income tax and exemptions, sales tax and exemptions, use taxes and exemptions as well as property taxes and exemptions.

The states with the highest overall score were Alabama (72%) and Kansas (69%). Other states with high overall scores included Indiana (68%), Texas (65%), and Mississippi (63%).

The report praised Alabama for “strong constitutional protections for free exercise of religion, a state constitutional amendment requiring government burdens on religious exercise to satisfy strict scrutiny, and an automatic exemption from state corporate income tax for organizations with federal 501(c)(3) status.”

On the other hand, Michigan (31%) and Washington (35%) had the lowest overall scores. Massachusetts had an overall score of 37% while Illinois, Maryland and West Virginia all received overall scores of 38%.

The report criticizes Michigan for its “broad Blaine Amendment,” which prohibits religious organizations from receiving state funding, and for “nondiscrimination laws regarding public accommodations and employment that include no meaningful exemptions for religious organizations.”

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

The Anglican Church Split: Culture Wins over Scripture

The Anglican Church just split in two.  And it happened because the Church of England decided that 1,400 years of biblical faithfulness matters less than a headline.

On October 3, 2025, the Church of England announced Sarah Mullally, the 63-year-old bishop of London, as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman to hold the post in the church’s history.  The celebration was immediate.  British Prime Minister Keir Starmer praised her appointment.  The Archbishop of York called it “delightful.” Progressive Anglicans hailed it as long-overdue progress.

But the controversy was just as swift.

Within two weeks, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), a coalition of conservative Anglican provinces representing millions across Africa, Asia, and the Americas, issued a blunt statement: They will no longer recognize the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The Anglican Communion, they declared, would be “reordered.”

The office of Archbishop of Canterbury dates back to 597 AD.  Over the nearly 1,400 years, 105 men held the post.  The continuity of male leadership was rooted in the church’s understanding of Scripture, tradition, and apostolic order.  That pattern is now broken.

This is not progress.  This is capitulation.  And the Church of England has just announced to the world that Scripture is negotiable when culture demands it.

Why did this happen?  The reasons for elevating this woman to the highest leadership position within the Church of England are multifaceted, but three forces converged to make it happen right now: cultural pressure, an institutional crisis, and theological compromise.

Culturally, the Church of England is drowning in progressivism.  British society has fully embraced gender equity as an unquestionable good.  To appoint another man would have been seen as regressive.  The Church wanted to signal that it is “modern” and “relevant.”

Institutionally, the church is hemorrhaging members as secularism rises.  And it is staggering from a sex-abuse scandal that forced Justin Welby’s resignation in November 2024 after an investigation found he failed to act on serial abuse by a volunteer at Christian summer camps.  Did the church feel compelled to appoint a woman precisely because of this scandal?  The conclusion is inescapable: Male leadership has failed, so let’s try something different.  Never mind that the problem was not maleness but sin and institutional rot.  The solution was not biblical reformation but cultural accommodation.

Theologically, to justify the decision to erase role distinctions, supporters of the new female bishop point to Galatians 3:28, which says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  However, Paul is speaking of salvation here, not office.  Likewise, supporters claim that 1 Timothy and Titus are culturally conditioned, but Paul grounds his instruction in creation order, not culture.

The real issue is whether Scripture is allowed to speak at all, or whether culture gets the final word.

And here’s the deeper problem: In 2023, Mullally called the approval of marriage for same-sex couples “a moment of hope for the Church.”  Speaking at Canterbury Cathedral after her appointment, she pledged to be “a shepherd who enables everyone’s ministry and vocation to flourish, whatever our tradition.”  That language sounds warm to some, but it signals surrender.  The church has chosen a leader who represents not just a shift on gender but a broader drift on sexuality, marriage, and biblical authority.

What does Scripture actually say?

Scripture has much to say about all of these issues, particularly for women.  And while there are many important tasks that women can handle both within the family and the Church, the office of elder (or priest or bishop or overseer) is reserved for qualified men. Paul writes to Timothy: “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.  Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…” (1 Timothy 3:1-2).

The language is unmistakably male.  The qualifications assume male headship in the home and the Church.

Paul also writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12).  This verse is not about worth or dignity, as men and women are equally made in the image of God, equally redeemed by Christ. Instead, it is about order, role, and God’s design for how His household should be governed.

Giftedness does not determine calling.  God has designed the Church with a particular order that reflects the relationship between Christ and His Church.  Just as Christ is the Head and the Church is His Bride, so the man is called to lead in the home and the Church in a way that mirrors that relationship (Ephesians 5:22-33).  To overturn that order is not just to change a policy — it is to obscure the Gospel itself.

The Anglican tradition, like the broader Catholic tradition, has always understood this. The historic creeds and confessions affirm male-only ordination.  To break from this is not to “update” the tradition. It is to abandon it.

And when you change one foundational pattern, you open the door to changing others. The Church of England first allowed women priests in 1994, then women bishops in 2014, and now a woman archbishop.  Along the way, it began “blessing” same-sex unions and is now debating whether to formally recognize same-sex marriage.  Once you decide that Scripture’s teaching on gender roles is negotiable, you have no principled way to resist the next demand.

The Anglican Communion is a global fellowship of 85 million Christians in over 165 countries. But it is fracturing along theological lines.

GAFCON chairman Archbishop Laurent Mbanda of Rwanda said it plainly, “This appointment abandons global Anglicans, as the Church of England has chosen a leader who will further divide an already split Communion.”  The conservative provinces, mostly in Africa and Asia, hold to the historic biblical position.  They represent the majority of practicing Anglicans worldwide, and they are now taking steps to distance themselves from the Church of England.  GAFCON has announced the formation of the “Global Anglican Communion,” a new structure that will reject the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  “We have not left the Anglican Communion; we are the Anglican Communion,” he stated.  “The reset of our beloved Communion is now uniquely in the hands of GAFCON, and we are ready to take the lead.”

History confirms what happens next.  When churches shift foundational practices on authority, gender, and sexuality, they decline.  Look at what has happened to the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist, the Lutheran Church (ELCA), and so on.  Can the Anglican expect any different?

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Cardinal Accuses Europe of Leading the Ideological Persecution of Christianity

Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah issued a stark warning about Europe’s moral and spiritual decline.  “Enshrining abortion in the Constitution is a direct affront to God,” he stated, emphasizing that the ideological persecution of faith in the West is now more dangerous than the physical violence endured by Christians in Africa and Asia.

Sarah, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship, denounced Europe, once the cradle of Christianity, as having become the epicenter of a cultural war against faith and traditional values.  “Ideological persecution in the West is more insidious, more destructive, because it does not kill the body but the soul of nations,” he stressed.

The cardinal specifically addressed the case of France, where the government and much of the parliament are pushing to include abortion as a constitutional right.  “Turning the murder of the innocent into fundamental law is blasphemous.  It is a mockery of God and natural law,” he declared, recalling that the Second Vatican Council described abortion as “an abominable crime,” a stance that, in his words, “the Church can never change.”

The African prelate, known for his steadfast defense of moral order and traditional liturgy, also condemned the growing marginalization of Christianity in the Western public sphere.  In its view, militant secularism has replaced faith with an ideology that idolizes moral relativism and absolute individual autonomy.  “Europe is tearing out its Christian roots and, in doing so, destroying its identity,” he stated.

Meanwhile, he noted, millions of Christians in Africa and Asia live under the threat of death, discrimination, or displacement.

According to the 2025 report by Open Doors, over 380 million Christians face persecution or severe restrictions on their religious freedom.  In countries like Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Christian communities are attacked by jihadist groups, while in Asia, authoritarian governments intensify repression.

Yet Sarah considers “Europe's moral indifference and public apostasy” an even greater threat to the faith.  For the cardinal, the issue lies not only in laws, but in the mindset driving them.  “When a society declares that human life can be legally eliminated, that society has broken its covenant with God,” he warned.

In his analysis, abortion, euthanasia, and the dissolution of the family concept are symptoms of a deeper spiritual crisis: the replacement of objective good with personal desire.

Sarah called on European Catholics not to yield to ideological pressure and to defend the truth of the Gospel in the public square.  “The silence of believers is complicity.  We must speak with courage, for the world needs to hear God’s voice again,” he urged.

The cardinal’s warning is not only theological but also political.  Europe, he said, is becoming a laboratory for moral engineering driven by a left that has made abortion, gender ideology, and secularization its new dogmas.  “When the left legislates against life and against God, it destroys the foundations of Western civilization,” he concluded.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Pro-Life Groups Fight to Stop Abortion Funding in Obamacare

Pro-life advocates are seizing on a deepening congressional standoff over Obamacare subsidies to push for long-sought restrictions that would block federal dollars from funding abortions.

They are warning that Democratic demands could lock in taxpayer support for the abortions indefinitely.

The federal government shutdown, now in its 3rd week, has pitted Republicans against Democrats in a battle over extending enhanced premium tax credits for the Affordable Care Act, set to expire at year’s end.  More than 90% of the roughly 24 million Americans enrolled in Obamacare plans rely on the subsidies, originally enacted as a COVID relief measure in 2021.

Leading pro-life groups, long critical of Obamacare’s structure, view the impasse as a pivotal chance to enforce Hyde Amendment protections — which bar federal funding for abortions except in very rare cases — on the program’s subsidies.  They argue the current system skirts those rules, effectively funneling taxpayer money to plans that cover elective abortions that kill babies.

“Democrats wrote Obamacare intentionally this way, specifically to avoid the Hyde Amendment, so that they could squeeze an abortion coverage in these plans and make sure that taxpayer dollars were propping these plans up,” said Kelsey Pritchard, a policy expert for SBA Pro-Life America.

In early September, SBA Pro-Life America joined 88 other pro-life organizations (including LifeNews.com) in a letter to lawmakers, urging opposition to any subsidy extension without Hyde compliance.  The group plans to track votes on the issue for its annual Pro-Life Scorecard, which grades lawmakers on abortion-related measures.

The standoff escalated as Democrats rejected multiple Republican proposals for a short-term spending bill, or continuing resolution, to avert the shutdown.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, (LA-R), accused Democrats of prioritizing partisan goals over essential services, noting the closure’s toll on 2 million federal civilian employees and 1.3 million active-duty service members who will miss paychecks.

“Although the Schumer shutdown is hitting many hard-working federal employees who deserve better treatment, it’s encouraging to hear that the Trump Administration is making preparation to meet the Democrats’ unprecedented intransigence with a stubborn refusal to be bullied,” said Quena González, senior director of government affairs for the Family Research Council (FRC).  “There is too much at stake in this debate to fold.  FRC is carefully tracking the Democrats’ central demand — to make the COVID-era subsidies for the ‘Affordable’ Care Act permanent — because those subsidies force taxpayers to pay for gender transitions and abortion.”

Last week, Sen. Josh Hawley, (MO-R), introduced legislation to prohibit Obamacare exchange plans from covering abortions or gender transition treatments for minors, embedding Hyde language directly into federal coverage terms.  “It’s time to ban abortion and gender-transition procedures for minors on the healthcare exchanges.  No more loopholes,” Hawley said in a statement.

In 12 states, all Obamacare plans must cover abortions, amplifying the issue.

House Speaker Johnson tied the subsidies to Obamacare’s broader failures, noting premiums have risen 60% since 2010.  “[N]ever forget when the government subsidizes something, it means it’s not working,” he said.  “Obamacare did not achieve what they promised everyone that it would.  It was supposed to bring down the cost of care.  It’s done the opposite.”

 

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

A Missions-Minded Shift to Protect the Preborn

In a context where abortion is a politically-charged issue, LIFE International challenges the Church to see the missional call to protect the People of the Womb.

Who are the People of the Womb?

Alissa Hollander says LIFE International began calling preborn children the People of the Womb to be more missional in their language.  The objectives of the ministry have not changed, but this way of speaking helps the Church orient the preborn to the Great Commission.

Hollander says, “It’s more or less a framework of thinking about how we approach the family structure that God has created, the Church that God has created for us.  And how the Great Commission really does call us as Christians to take our rightful place as the Church in defending the most innocent among us.  Putting the term People of the Womb on babies – people that are obviously human beings from the moment of conception – really does something in people’s hearts and minds to awaken them to the reality, not only the humanity of the preborn, but also our particular role as the global Church.”

A Practical Heart for People of the Womb

Practically this type of thinking in relation to the preborn helps reach more image-bearers with the Gospel.  LIFE International often talks about their call to join the mission field created by abortion.  Speaking about the preborn as People of the Womb highlights the missional opportunity.  It also reflects God’s heart for a vulnerable group in society.

LIFE International provides worldwide training for Christian leaders.  “Journey of a Life Giver” teaches both on biology and the theology surrounding life.  “It’s about a three - maybe four-day transformational training,” Hollander says.  “So, the training really creates the opportunity, not only for people to understand the theology and the biology of life, but also to assess within their region of the world, or the context that they live in, the ways that life is devalued around them.  And to ask the Lord to show them how they might participate in helping to either end abortion or some other way that they see life devalued.”

This training helps the Church see the truth about God’s image-bearers regardless of their context.  Hollander says that many attending this training never understood the biological truths of human conception and growth before.  For them, this can mean conviction.

“We also walk people through healing post-abortion, whether they themselves have had an abortion or they have gone with somebody, or counseled someone to get an abortion when that light bulb goes on for them and they realize the humanity and the image bearer that is in the womb, because most times we are interacting with people who are already professing Christians.  You’d be surprised how many places in the world don’t really realize what an abortion is, don’t realize the humanity of life in the womb, and that it is an image bearer from the moment of conception.”

Join the Cause

The Great Commission call to disciple the nations involves radical changes to lives. Some of that change includes rightly valuing God’s image-bearers – the People of the Womb.

 

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

 

College Students Identifying as Trans and Non-Binary Craters in Just 2-Years

The number of Gen Z Americans identifying as transgender or non-binary has rapidly declined since 2023, a new study has found.  Survey data out this year from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) shows approximately 3.6% of undergraduate students in the United States still claim to be something other than male or female.  However, that number represents a significant decline from the prior year, a report by the Centre for Heterodox Social Science found.

In 2024, 5.2% of U.S. undergraduates claimed a transgender or non-binary identity, and in both 2022 and 2023 that number was 6.8%, according to the data.  The most recent survey, conducted in 2025, found that just 3.6% of students identified as something other than male or female, a nearly 50% decline since 2023.

While several theories have circulated about what has been behind the rising adoption of nonbiological gender identities — such as social contagion, social media, or mental health related issues — the change in the trendline may itself point to some answers.

As the report’s author speculates, mental health disorders like depression and anxiety have begun declining over a similar time frame for American college students.  After an alarming 44% of university students showing signs of depression in 2022, that number dropped to 41% in 2023 and 38% in 2024, according to a survey from The Economist.  It marked the first positive trend in the data in more than 15 years.

Interestingly, the shift away from gender ideology does not appear to be part of a broader political shift. FIRE’s 2025 report found a rising number of students support leftist tactics such as using violence to stop speech they disagree with.

Social contagion is another widespread theory on what is behind the surge in young people who claim to be something other than a man or woman.  One 2023 study found that more than half of teen girls who claimed to be transgender had friends who also claimed to be transgender, and that teens of both sexes were more likely to claim a transgender identity when they have friends who are also transgender.  Even with politics among youth remaining stable and teens’ social media use remaining high, transgender identities may simply be growing less trendy.

Despite the promising statistics, a report published in August by the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute found that transgenderism among 13- to 17-year-olds is rapidly rising, with a whopping 724,000 kids, 3.3%, claiming not to identify with their biological sex.

 

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

Florida School Caught Promoting Witchcraft

Government school officials in Orange County, FL, were subjecting captive students to lessons teaching sorcery and witchcraft — literally.  The move sparked outrage among critics, and legal demands that West Orange High School stop the program immediately or at least give students the ability to opt out and promote Christianity.

According to news reports and Liberty Counsel, a Christian non-profit law firm that got involved in the case, every Wednesday, students at the school were shown witchcraft programming across the school’s TV system as part of the mid-week morning announcements.  There was no option to avoid the program.

Dubbed “Witchy Wednesday,” the video series shown schoolwide over the school’s TV system included lessons on casting spells, using magic, worshipping the moon, and other occult rituals.  The lessons also taught students to burn incense and fold papers to burn based on the moon’s cycle.

The video, shown on September 10, featured a student offering instructions on how to perform the rituals.  “You write your intuition down on your paper.  Fold it three times.  Burn your paper into your white candle.  Burn it completely and entirely to have your intention released into the universe,” the student reportedly said in the video shown to all students during the morning announcements. “That itself is your ‘Light of Insight’ at work.”

“There is a full moon coming up on September 18, where the energy is at its highest peak,” the video added before urging students to enjoy a “wicked” Wednesday.  “Creating simple things like moon water and releasing rituals are good ways to cleanse and recharge yourself during this period.”

Of course, the Bible, which was unlawfully banned by a rogue Supreme Court over 50 years ago, repeatedly and forcefully condemns such rituals.  In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and other books, God refers to the practices as an “abomination” that is connected to the demonic realm.  And yet, the school had no problem exposing students to it until being called out.

Citing various Supreme Court rulings, Orange County Public Schools administrators and attorneys shut down the program recently — but only after being put on notice by Liberty Counsel.  “The segment was delivered over the school’s television system, on the school’s morning announcements under the supervision of school faculty,” wrote the school district’s general counsel John Palmerini in a letter to Liberty Counsel.  “As such, we cannot constitutionally allow such a segment to continue to take place in the future.”  “Consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Santa Fe, we do not want any student, whether Christian or non-Christian, to feel like they are outsiders and not full members of the political community at West Orange High School,” he continued.  “As such, we can no longer allow the segment in question to continue.”

In its original complaint, Liberty Counsel suggested the school could also allow Christian students to share their faith in Jesus Christ over the school’s TV system during announcements.  But rather than allow students to hear about the Bible and Christianity, officials decided to stop the witchcraft programming entirely.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver thanked the district, nevertheless.  “We commend Orange County Public Schools for taking action to discontinue the ‘Witchy Wednesday’ video segments,” he said.  “Witchcraft and teaching students how to cast occultic spells have no place in government schools.”

Palmerini, the district’s lawyer, acknowledged that promoting witchcraft lessons and spells at a tax-funded school was problematic.  But he also criticized Liberty Counsel for informing the media before the district had a chance to respond, as if parents and taxpayers did not have a right to know that children were being subjected to occult rituals at school.

This invasion of occultism and the demonic in government schools is becoming increasingly prevalent.  In 2021, California’s State Board of Education unanimously approved a program requiring children to chant to pagan Aztec deities of cannibalism, war, and human sacrifice.  They only stopped it after a lawsuit.

Earlier this year, The Newman Report exposed California’s “mental health” app for students.  It is filled with promotion of the occult, sorcery, transgenderism, homosexuality, extreme leftist political positions, and more.  The app included Tarot cards references as well.

Just a few months ago, The Newman Report explained that Chicago taxpayers were forced to pay millions of dollars to victims of the local government schools for similar outrages.  Among other concerns, the school was forcing students to participate in Hindu rituals and offer sacrifices to small demonic idols.

The connections between the demonic and government’s takeover of education go back to the beginning.  Robert Owen, the first contemporary figure to propose that the government educate children, admitted he was getting his ideas from “spirits.”  Today, numerous top educators openly boast of their collaboration with spiritual entities.

The occultism and the demonic is now ubiquitous in government “education.” They do not even bother to hide it anymore.  For the sake of sanity and children’s eternal souls, it is past time for parents and churches to reclaim control of education from the state.  Everything is at stake.

 

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