SCOTUS Clears Way for Worship

On February 5th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that California (CA) officials cannot bar churches from holding indoor services amid the COVID pandemic.  They issued orders siding with churches that had protested the state banning indoor services (but not agreeing to strike down prohibitions on singing and chanting during indoor services), and not blocking CA from imposing 25% capacity restrictions in areas deemed Tier 1 on a scale of virus transmission.

The case drew four different opinions from the nine person SCOTUS:

1. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”  “The state has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID-19.  I see no basis in this record for overriding that aspect of the state public health framework,” he added.  “At the same time, the state’s present determination— that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero— appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.”

2. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito said California “has openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses” since the arrival of COVID-19.  While California forbade any kind of indoor worship in most of the state, it allowed most retail operations to have 25% occupancy indoors and other businesses 50% or more occupancy.  Justice Gorsuch added, “When a state so obviously targets religion for differential treatment, our job becomes that much clearer.”

3. Justice Amy Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote in a concurring opinion that she largely agreed with Justice Gorsuch, but didn’t believe the court should block the prohibition on singing and chanting.  “The applicants bore the burden of establishing their entitlement to relief from the singing ban.  In my view, they did not carry that burden— at least not on this record.  As the case comes to us, it remains unclear whether the singing ban applies across the board (and thus constitutes a neutral and generally applicable law) or else favors certain sectors (and thus triggers more searching review),” she wrote.  “Of course, if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral.  But the record is uncertain, and the decisions below unfortunately shed little light on the issue.”

4. The three Democrat-appointed justices banded together in a dissenting opinion led by Justice Elena Kagan, who said justices on the court “are not scientists” and don’t “know much about public health policy.”  “Yet today the court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic.  The court orders California to weaken its restrictions on public gatherings by making a special exception for worship services.  The majority does so even though the state’s policies treat worship just as favorably as secular activities (including political assemblies) that, according to medical evidence, pose the same risk of COVID transmission,” Kagan alleged.  “Under the court’s injunction, the state must instead treat worship services like secular activities that pose a much lesser danger.  That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.”

The ruling dealt with cases from Harvest Rock Church and South Bay United Pentecostal Church— two churches that sought relief from CA Gov. Gavin Newsom’s harsh restrictions imposed through a tiered system.

In an emailed statement, Newsom’s press secretary Daniel Lopez told The Epoch Times: “The state of California has taken necessary steps throughout the pandemic to protect Californians from COVID-19 and prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed by the disease, particularly during the recent surge.  While the Supreme Court enjoined the state’s restriction on indoor worship services in counties where COVID-19 is widespread, the Court left in place public health measures imposed to protect worshippers, their families, and the communities in which they live.  We will continue to enforce the restrictions the Supreme Court left in place and, after reviewing the decision, and revise guidelines for worship services to continue to protect the lives of Californians.”!

To be clear: God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the Church.  It has never been the prerogative of civil government to order, modify, forbid, or mandate worship.  The worship of Christ’s Church is not subject to Caesar— rather, Caesar (himself) is subject to God.  Jesus affirmed that principle when He was brought before Pilate and told the Roman Governor: “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.” (John 19:11)  And because Christ is Head of the Church, Ecclesiastical matters pertain to His Kingdom— not Caesar’s.  Jesus drew a stark distinction between those two kingdoms when He said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17)  Our Lord (Himself) always rendered to Caesar what was Caesar’s— but He never offered to Caesar what belongs solely to God.  Accordingly, the honor that we rightly owe our earthly governmental authorities does not include compliance— when such officials attempt to subvert sound doctrine, corrupt Biblical morality, exercise Ecclesiastical authority, or usurp Christ as Head of the Church … in any other way.

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

UN Effort to Create List of ‘LGBT Hate Groups’

Ryan Foley of Christian Post writes— A conservative group is warning that the United Nations (UN) is preparing to compile a list of “LGBT hate groups” that could be used as a “blacklist” to punish groups and organizations that subscribe to traditional beliefs about gender and sexuality.

According to the Center for Family and Human Rights (CFHR), “the UN rights office is collecting the names of anyone who opposes the LGBT agenda in any way.”  The report addresses the contents of a “call for input to a thematic report” on the topic of “gender, sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Issued by Victor Madrigal-Borloz (the UN’s independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity), the call for input requests information on individual nation-states’ actions regarding issues of sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to asking for information about groups that oppose the idea that “the meanings attached to sex (and other) differences are socially created.”

In other words, Madrigal-Borloz is seeking information about which organizations within a particular country subscribe to the idea that there are only two genders.  He begins the call for input by noting that “many States have adopted gender as a key concept in laws and policies aimed at protecting women and LGBT persons against violence and discrimination.”

Madrigal-Borloz laments the fact that “within multilateral and regional organizations, among other fora, there are currently narratives that, under different lines of characterization (including the accusation of so-called ‘gender ideology’), seek to eliminate the gender framework from international human rights law instruments and processes, and national legislative and policy documents.”

The stated purpose of the impending report is to “document how these narratives are being used to fuel violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and their particular impact on sexual and reproductive rights.”  Madrigal-Borloz seeks responses from “States, regional and national human rights institutions, non-governmental organization, UN agencies, academic institutions, local governments and other relevant stakeholders.”

The first four questions he seeks answers to deal with (1) actions taken by individual states to establish definitions of gender, (2) establish policies “aiming to address violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” (3) establish databases detailing forms of violence and discrimination against LGBT people, and (4) teach comprehensive sexuality education.

The remaining questions ask about narratives that exist surrounding gender and sexuality within specific countries.  These questions cause the CFHR particular concern.

“Are there examples where the concept of gender has been used in religious narratives or narratives of tradition, traditional values or protection of the family to hinder the adoption of legislative policy measures aimed at addressing or eradicating violence and discrimination based on sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity?” Madrigal-Borloz asks.

Additional questions ask about whether “‘gender ideology,’ ‘genderism’ or other gender-related concepts have been used to introduce retrogressive measures, in particular but not limited to LGBT communities,” and if there have been “initiatives taken by States in connection with the right to freedom of religion, belief or conscience (including the figure of conscientious objection) that have had the practical impact of limiting the enjoyment of human rights (including sexual and reproductive rights) of LGBT persons.”

“Who are main actors who argue that the defenders of human rights of LGBT individuals are furthering a so-called ‘gender ideology’?  What are their main arguments?  Have they been ineffective in regressing the human rights of LGBT individuals?  Have their strategies directly or indirectly also impacted on the human rights of women and girls?”

The CFHR warns that “the UN LGBT czar appears to be adopting the approach of the Southern Poverty Law Center, of creating a list of ‘hate groups.’”  The CFHR noted that Madrigal-Borloz had previously urged states to “take decisive action” against “representatives of churches and faith-based groups” that “infringe on the rights of LGBT persons” using “hate speech.”

Unfortunately, most churches and clergy will not make the list!  I better make the list— or I’ve not been faithful to the proclamation of God’s truth!

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

House Taking Up “Equality Act”

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on House Resolution 5 (H.R. 5)— the so-called “Equality Act.”  This will have disastrous consequences for women, children, and people of a Biblical worldview.  It mandates an anti-life, anti-family, and anti-faith agenda upon all Americans.

H.R. 5 adds the legally undefined “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI) to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal non-discrimination laws.  The bill redefines “sex” to no longer mean the biological (and Biblical) “male or female.”  Instead, “sex” would include sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

H.R. 5 brings the power of the federal government against those who believe the biological truth of God’s design, that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 5:2).  The bill labels Christian beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and family “discriminatory.”  It empowers the federal government to punish disagreement on these important issues.

This dangerous bill provides no religious exemptions.  In fact, it explicitly exempts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a defense for violations.

Similar SOGI laws have been passed in many states and local municipalities— so we already know some of the negative consequences as noted in this brief overview of some of the problems with the “Equality Act” according to Attorney Travis Weber— V.P. for Policy & Gov’t Affairs of the Family Research Council:

The Equality Act jeopardizes women’s privacy and safety.

The Equality Act’s expansion of the Title II “Public Accommodations” definition means that females would no longer have privacy in public bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, or even battered women’s shelters.  State and local laws to this effect are already causing fallout: A kindergartener was assaulted by a boy in her school bathroom.  A rape survivor was forced to quit her job when her employer began allowing men into women’s private facilities.  A man was allowed residence in a shelter, and nine women are suing because they were sexually harassed.

The Equality Act unfairly penalizes female athletes by allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports.

For example, biological boys won first and second place at a Connecticut girls’ high school indoor track championship.  As a result, two biological girls fell below the threshold to advance to the next meet— inhibiting their ability to be seen by college recruiters and obtain scholarships.  [Scholarships are sometimes the only avenue students have to pursue higher education, which could lead to better job opportunities and better pay.]

The Equality Act would undermine real civil rights gains women have made.

For example, the Small Business Administration Office of Women’s Business Ownership— whose mission is to “enable and empower women entrepreneurs through advocacy, outreach, education and support”— would have to give biological men who identify as women access to its programs.

The Equality Act would interfere with the medical profession.

It would force doctors and others who provide legitimate hormone treatments and surgical procedures for patients with certain physical conditions to offer those treatments for individuals with gender dysphoria.  Their moral or medical opinions about assisting individuals in physically altering their bodies would be disregarded.  Medicine would be politicized— despite science telling us these treatments are actually harmful.  A 2011 Swedish study, one of the most robust on the issue, found that post-surgery individuals had a suicide completion rate 19 times higher than the general population.  The risk of psychiatric hospitalization was 2.8 times higher even after adjustment for prior psychiatric disease.  Additionally, death by neoplasm (a benign or cancerous mass) and cardiovascular disease was 2 to 2.5 times higher.  There is also evidence that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can cause cancer, heart disease, diabetes, blood clots, stroke, and more.  The Equality Act’s requirements would override a doctor’s concern about any of these points.

The Equality Act could erode parental rights.

When Ohio parents declined hormone treatment for their child, the Children’s Hospital of Cincinnati involved child protective services, and the parents were ultimately stripped of their parental rights.

The Equality Act would severely erode religious freedom.

The Equality Act expressly exempts itself from the RFRA— the flagship religious liberty law.

The Equality Act’s expansion of public accommodations could require churches and houses of worship to violate their beliefs regarding how they use their facilities.

Its changes to employment law would prohibit some houses of worship from ensuring their clergy and employees abide by their doctrines or beliefs about marriage, sexual behavior, and the distinction between the sexes.

Federal aid could be denied to students attending faith-based institutions— unless those institutions abandon policies and practices reflecting their sincerely held beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

The Equality Act would inhibit faith-based charities’ ability to operate.

Faith-based organizations and others play a vital role in the adoption and foster care system and generally receive funding under Title IV of the Social Security Act to help do their important work.  The Equality Act would force them to violate their beliefs or shut down, displacing children like the thousands left hanging in Illinois when Catholic Charities was shut down under a similar law.

The Equality Act could be the most pro-abortion legislation to pass the House in a decade.

Not only would this bill expand “public accommodations” to include health care providers, but it would add sex discrimination as a protected class.  It would then define prohibitions on “sex discrimination” to include preventing and treating “pregnancy … or a related medical condition” (which can include abortion) less favorably than other physical conditions.  This change would essentially create an abortion mandate.  In conjunction with the RFRA exemption and expansion of what constitutes a public accommodation, this also jeopardizes long-standing federal conscience laws that protect those opposed to abortion.  The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion, would also be in jeopardy.

The Equality Act shamefully attempts to usurp the civil rights movement’s history and legacy.

In no way are one’s sexual conduct and inclinations equivalent to the innate characteristic of skin color.  Suggesting or implying as much diminishes the hard-fought gains of this movement.  Indeed, scientific evidence shows that “sexual orientation” is quite fluid and that “gender identity” is not fixed.  But if the Equality Act becomes law, its backers may use the courts to force its ideas into public school curricula around the country.  Indeed, the idea that these notions are equivalent to skin color is false, and failure to recognize this falsehood only harms all affected.

Listen: Now is the time to express your objection to H.R. 5 with your elected officials.  Contact them today to tell them not to cosponsor and not to support the Equality Act.  Let them know that a vote in favor of H.R. 5 does not represent your viewpoint.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Return

I feel the time has come for me to return to posting on my blog— Kingdom Builder … because of the evident need to enlighten God’s people with an understanding of the Biblical worldview.  I am fully aware that the strong opposition to ‘truth’ may well attempt to censor my words— in part or in full— as they have in the past.  Yet, I feel compelled to be “salt and light” amid the distasteful news and ever-increasing darkness within our culture.

Just as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Church at Philippi— “Whatever is true … think on such things.” (Philippians 4:8)— so I (as a Christian) will strive to speak the truth with the hope that you will “think on such things.”  But beyond your thinking, please share these postings as far-and-wide as you are capable.  Do not merely ‘keep the faith’— but ‘share it.’

Starting next week, I will return to posting on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.  My posts will reveal both personal thoughts and those of others … which I will endeavor to properly credit.

Until then, may God anoint and protect this proclamation of truth— to His honor and glory.  Amen.

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

Signing-Off … For Now

For over 5-years (since 2013), I’ve posted on this blog three times a week (every Monday-Wednesday-Friday).  Though I’ve had very few comments rendered (in response) on my blog, I’ve had a consistent readership 5-times as great as I’m now registering.  Postings on my Facebook page previously resulted in many comments (pro & con) and numerous persons ‘sharing’ – but that has significantly diminished.  Perhaps Facebook has determined my postings to be contrary to their agenda.  With so few readers, it pains me to cease what I’ve enjoyed doing over the years – but I must make the best of my time.  It’s been a stimulating experience, and I thank those of you who took the time to read my blog.  Maybe someday it will return to “Empowering God’s People for Engaging the Culture ... by Equipping them with an Understanding of a Biblical Worldview.”  Until then, may God bless you!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Liberals Panic Transgender Annihilation

The New York Times (NYT) located its newest, freshest outrage on the Trump Administration in a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo that’s not new – but circulated since last spring.  Some insensitive bureaucrat argued that federal policy on gender should be based on “a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.”  [read my blog posting of Monday, November 29 – “Here is How the Trump Administration Aims to Define Transgender”]

But, wait a minute!  Don’t liberals believe policy should be grounded in science?  Of course, they do! … but apparently not when it conflicts with their cultural dogmas on “gender fluidity.”

The NYT headline was not just skewed; it came with a hint of holocaust: “Trump May Limit How Government Defines One’s Sex.”  The HHS memo bases gender policy on the genitalia you’re born with.  “The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4-million Americans,” the story says.  It ends with a former Obama bureaucrat denouncing any change that would return to biology because it “quite simply negates the humanity of people.”

The NYT was not alone. Time magazine tweeted, “Reports that the Trump administration plans to erase the definition of transgender spark alarm.”  Leftists quickly started the Twitter hashtag “#Wont-BeErased.”  A Boston Globe tweet warned that the change could be drastic, quoting the NYT piece: “The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a government-wide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people.”  The Daily Beast headline was “Trump Wants to Pretend Trans People Don’t Exist.  Well, We Do.”  The Daily Beast tweeted, “The Trump administration’s potential new rule on gender would take transgender rights even further into the Dark Ages than they already are.”

Then the celebrities on Twitter really took the “eradication” language into absurdity.  Actor Bradley Whitford (of “The West Wing” and “Billy Madison”) tweeted: “This is obscene. This must not stand.  This is, and I use this word intentionally, what the Nazis did. Otherization, vilification and exclusion of vulnerable minorities.”  Deaf “America’s Next Top Model” winner Nyle Di-Marco used the word “genocide.”  He tweeted: “Disgusting. Alarming.  TRANS PEOPLE ARE REAL.  THEIR EXISTENCE ARE NOT UP FOR DEBATE.  AND this is genocide.”

All this because a memo is circulating that suggests the federal government shouldn’t force every local school district into a federal mandate to provide a taxpayer-funded panoply of redefined bathroom spaces and other “protections.”

Liberals inside and outside the media can’t seem to grasp that Obama’s transgender mandates caused alarm with conservatives, science lovers and religious people alike … and that the mandates were a serious reason those people marched to the polls to vote for President Trump.  

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Sex and Gender – Two Different Things

Anatomy at birth may prompt attending physicians or nurses to check the ‘male’ or ‘female’ box on a birth certificate, but according to The Associated Press (AP), sex and gender isn’t always the same thing.

As shared in my previous blog posting [October 29 – “Here is How the Trump Administration Aims to Define Transgender”], The New York Times (NYT) reported the Trump Administration is considering rolling back the Obama-era expansion of Title IX – a move that essentially redefined the word “sex” in the statute that bans sex discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding.  LGBTQA groups decried the proposed rollback, believing it’s a violation of their civil rights.

In a follow-up report, AP asked the following question of Dr. Jason Rafferty of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): Aren’t sex and gender interchangeable terms?  “Sex typically refers to anatomy while gender goes beyond biology,” Rafferty told AP.  “Gender identity is more an inner sense of being male, female or somewhere in between – regardless of physical anatomy.  It may be influenced by genetics and other factors, but it’s more about the brain than the sex organs.”  According to Rafferty, transgender is a term “accepted across science and medical groups” to mean people whose gender identity doesn’t match what Rafferty calls their “sex assigned at birth.”

OneNewsNow spoke with Dr. Michelle Cretella, Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians, who sees things differently.  “The lie is that people have sex and that they have something else called gender,” she begins.  “That’s the foundational lie – and Dr. Rafferty is the author of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ pro-transgender policy statement that was just torn to shreds by an openly gay psychologist who looked at the AAP’s policy statement, authored by Dr. Rafferty, and pulled all the references.”  According to Cretella, the references that Rafferty cites for the AAP do not support the claims that he makes.  “He claims, and the AAP claims, that every child – regardless of how young – must be accepted for whatever gender identity they declare and that we need to go ahead and raise them as the opposite sex, whether they are two or sixteen or eighteen,” she continues.  “That is demonstrably false [and] that’s what the AP story is basing their so-called science on.” 

The truth, says Dr. Cretella, is that every human being is conceived with a biological sex, which is determined by an individual’s DNA alone.  “Our identity, our self-awareness of being male or female, is something that is learned, and it develops over time,” she adds.  “It is not until the child is seven years old that a child’s brain is capable of understanding that sex does not change when you change your appearance.  That is the science ... the psychological science, the neurological science ... that the transgender activists – including the transgender activists who wear white coats and stethoscopes – are ignoring.”

As for the Trump Administration’s possible “rolling back” of the Obama-era expansion of Title IX, it was never a change in the law – as implied by the reaction and protests of LGBTQ activists.  In 2010 the Obama Administration wrote a letter that added “non-conforming genders” to the Title IX civil rights law passed in 1972 … redefining the concept throughout the entire federal bureaucracy.  A memo from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), referenced in the NYT article, would simply put the original, scientific definition back.  As columnist David French writes, the proposal would be simply “applying conventional rules of statutory construction to correct the Obama Administration overreach.”

American Family Association’s Sandy Rios says the madness has gone far enough. “We’ve allowed that to happen because we have not spoken back firmly and said, No – this is biology.  This is the way God designed things,” she exclaims.  She contends there are signs many Americans are ready to stand up to those who continue to peddle the “gender identity” lie.  “I think that’s one of the biggest reasons why President Trump has taken the imagination of the American people, because he’s willing to say the things that the American people have been afraid to say,” she shares.

The NYT reports the HHS memo was drafted and has been circulating since last spring.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Here is How the Trump Administration Aims to Define Transgender

The Trump Administration is attempting to do away with the official term of ‘transgender’ by changing the definition of gender to one of a biological condition determined at birth as either male or female.

According to a memo obtained by The New York Times (NYT), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is leading an effort to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX – the federal civil rights law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex.  Under it, a person’s gender designation could not be changed once it was defined by the genitals a person is born with.

Under the Obama Administration, the legal concept of gender was loosened through a series of decisions … recognizing gender as an individual choice and not one determined at birth.  The policy led to legal challenges concerning bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other areas where gender had previously been identified as either male or female.

The NYT reported an HHS spokeswoman declined comment on what she called “allegedly leaked documents.”  But HHS officials said they were following a ruling by a Texas US district judge as a guide to transgender policy.

In 2016, Judge Reed O’Connor ruled on a challenge to a provision in the Affordable Care Act that forbade discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, and other characteristics. He has written that “Congress did not understand ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’”

“The court order remains in full force and effect today and HHS is abiding by it as we continue to review the issue,” Roger Severino, Director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement.

But the NYT points out that other court decisions have gone in favor of the Obama Administration’s position.  That was one of the reasons for the move for a new, standard definition by HHS.  The department’s memo says the lack of a stand-alone definition allowed the Obama Administration and courts to take “advantage of this circumstance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in a multitude of agencies, and under a multitude of laws,” which in turn “led to confusion and negative policy consequences in health care, education and other federal contexts.”  HHS also called on major federal agencies to adopt its definition of gender, so it will be the same in various government regulations, which would increase the likelihood that courts will accept it.

God’s Word is clear: “And God created them … male and female He created them.”  (Genesis 1:27)

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

When Religious Discrimination Goes Beyond Your Doorstep and Into Your Home

A law firm that fights religious discrimination is accusing a senior living community in Virginia of unlawfully punishing a retired pastor.  [I previously wrote about this in my blog posting of August 29, 2018 – “Evicted for a Bible Study in a Senior Community?”]

Rev. Ken Hauge, a retired Lutheran pastor, was conducting a Bible study in the common area at Evergreens at Smith Run in Fredericksburg, VA when the owner, Community Realty Company, instituted a policy that bans religious activities in the community room.  Abiding by the corporate policy, Hauge then moved the Bible study into his apartment, where First Liberty Institute (FL) attorney Lea Patterson says Hauge was told that is not allowed either.

“The letter that they sent to [Hauge],” says Patterson, “basically told him that he could not lead a Bible study either in the common area or in his own apartment.”

Last week, attorneys at FL submitted a complaint to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on behalf of Hauge and his wife.  The complaint alleges that the Evergreens and Community Realty violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of Hauge’s religion.  According to the eviction letter given to Hauge, the Bible study amounts to business activity, which the company claims is a violation of the lease agreement.

“It is both shameful and illegal to threaten elderly residents with eviction simply for holding a Bible study,” Patterson tells OneNewsNow.  “Treating residents unequally simply out of hostility to religion violates federal law and taints Virginia’s long history of religious freedom.”

FL first sent Evergreens and Community Realty a letter in August advising them they were discriminating against Hauge.

If HUD doesn’t resolve this matter, let it go to the U.S. Supreme Court … where the conservative majority can render a constitutional opinion on behalf of Rev. Hauge’s religious liberty.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Angry Parents Over 5th Grade Sex Survey

According to a Boston CBS affiliate, a group of parents in Vermont (VT) is mad after a number of 5th grade students were given a survey asking about sexual activity, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

One question in particular asked: “Have you been in a romantic relationship?  By relationship, we mean more than friends, like having a partner for planned events, like a school dance, going to the movies, or having a sexual partner.”

Vanessa Beach, a mother from Windsor, VT, told WPTZ, “My daughter is 10.  So are all the other kids who took this.  A sexual partner at 10 years old would be called sexual abuse.”  While Beach went on to say that she did not take issue with the subjects of gender identity and sexuality being discussed in the classroom, she felt that asking the children about their own personal experiences constituted an invasion of privacy.  She also believes the questions were not age-appropriate.

The survey was reportedly conducted by the organization WISE, a domestic violence prevention and advocacy group that also performs educational trainings in Windsor-area public schools.  The survey questions were developed by WISE in conjunction with the University of New Hampshire, with whom the data results were shared.

Although a form was supposedly sent home to parents allowing them to opt their students out of the survey, Beach claims she never received it.  And a researcher involved with the survey claimed that “passive-consent” policies are not uncommon in VT.  A spokesperson for WISE added that before the survey is handed out, students are informed that they may choose not to take it.  But Beach, along with a number of other parents, isn’t satisfied with that explanation.  She immediately posted a photo of the survey, and voiced her disapproval, on Facebook.  “I find this ridiculous and unnerving to say the least,” wrote Beach.  “I am so pissed I haven’t read the rest yet!!”

Jane Stapleton is co-director of the Prevention Innovations Research Center at the University of New Hampshire.  Stapleton reportedly told Yahoo Lifestyle that the questionnaire was merely meant to help WISE evaluate school-based prevention programming.  Stapleton also denied the claim that children were being asked whether they’ve engaged in sexual activity.  “It’s asking a range of behaviors,” she told Yahoo Lifestyle.  “It’s a general question that asks about romantic relationships.  Yes, it does say sexual relationships, but it’s not asking about specific acts.”

But Beach apparently isn’t alone in her feelings about the intrusive survey questions.  She says she was contacted by the superintendent of Windsor Schools, who claimed neither he nor the school’s principal were informed about the survey, and that he was “enraged” by it.  School administrators have also said that they’ve received many parental complaints similar to those from Beach, and are presently working to address them.

This is just more evidence that parents must be constantly vigilant in protecting their children … particularly in the public schools!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Cost of Firing a Fire Chief Over Religious Views

The city of Atlanta has reached a settlement with Kelvin Cochran, its former fire chief, who was fired after he distributed a book at work in which he detailed his views on sexual morality.

Atlanta’s Fox News affiliate has reported that the city agreed pay Cochran $1.2 million in the settlement.  

In 2013, the former fire chief penned a book about his faith that he gave to approximately a dozen others whom he said had either asked for a copy or who shared his views.  Yet because his book took an unfavorable stance toward homosexuality, among other things, he was ousted in January 2015.  Then-Mayor Kasim Reed said that Cochran had violated city policy by promoting the book while on the job.  

The book, a 162-page men’s devotional titled Who Told You That You Were Naked?, briefly mentions the biblical perspective on sexual ethics and morality.

Reed initially said Cochran would have to undergo “sensitivity training” and in November 2014 was put on a 30-day suspension without pay … but was ultimately fired.  Cochran then filed a federal lawsuit and was represented by Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).  Together they contended that the city had violated his free speech and due-process rights and that his reputation had been marred such that he could no longer find employment as a firefighter.

“Given my history and work throughout my career and with the city of Atlanta, I was shocked that writing a book and encouraging Christian men to be the husbands and fathers and men that God had called us to be, would jeopardize my 34-year career,” Cochran said.

The Atlanta City Council voted 11-3 Monday on the specific amount of damages and attorneys’ fees it owes Cochran following negotiations with attorneys at ADF.  Atlanta’s present-Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms will now have to sign off on or veto the settlement package.

“The government can’t force its employees to get its permission before they engage in free speech.  It also can’t fire them for exercising that First Amendment freedom, causing them to lose both their freedom and their livelihoods,” ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot, who represented Cochran in court last year, said in a statement last week.  “We are very pleased that the city is compensating Chief Cochran as it should, and we hope this will serve as a deterrent to any government that would trample upon the constitutionally protected freedoms of its public servants.”

In December 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that Atlanta’s rules restricting non-work speech, such as Cochran’s book, were too wide and had enabled the city to discriminate against viewpoints with which they disagreed and, therefore, did “not pass constitutional muster.”  “This policy would prevent an employee from writing and selling a book on golf or badminton on his own time and, without prior approval, would subject him to firing.  It is unclear to the court how such an outside employment would ever affect the city’s ability to function, and the city provides no evidence to justify it. ... The potential for stifled speech far outweighs any unsupported assertion of harm,” the text of the ruling read.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Christians Nix LGBT Reading Event

An event where a cross-dressing man was scheduled to read pro-LGBT stories to little children at a public library isn’t going to happen because a Christian group intervened.

The public library in Lafayette, Louisiana, had scheduled “Drag Queen Story Hour,” but the Christian ministry Warriors for Christ – in conjunction with Citizens for a New Louisiana – filed a federal lawsuit to stop it.  “We have been going back and forth with the judge asking for a restraining order to stop this event, saying that it’s pandering sexuality and obscene material to children,” Pastor Rich Penkoski explains to OneNewsNow.

Last week, organizers moved the event from the library to South Louisiana Community College, but soon thereafter the college gave up on the event before the court even ruled on the matter.  The organizers denied it, but Penkoski says it was all about influencing youngsters.

“We did a Freedom of Information Act request from the library and we have found out that they were doing this on purpose, [that] they were manipulating what was being shown to parents to bring these kids there so that the children would be hearing messages of stories about how to get your parents to cross-dress and stories of a prince falling in love with another boy,” Penkoski shares.  “So they were actually targeting three-to-five-year olds – and the event introducing them to the LGBT lifestyle.”

Dylan Pontiff, the drag queen scheduled to read, admitted as much to a local newspaper: “I just think that this all comes from a population of people that don’t truly understand change, that don’t truly understand open-mindedness and empathy.  And that is the exact thing that Drag Queen Story Time is trying to create in our children.”

The books reported to have been read were “Strictly No Elephants” by Lisa Mantchev, “From the Stars in the Sky to the Fish in the Sea” by Kai Cheng Thom, and “The Rainbow Fish” by Marcus Pfister.

Penkoski concludes: “I believe that if Christians stood together and we prayed, because the power of God is with us in this, that these events would be shut down.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

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

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel