Podcasts about religious freedom restoration act rfra

Ozturk v. Hyde, et al., No. 25-1019 (2d Cir. May 7, 2025) and Mahdawi v. Trump, et al., No. 25-1113 (2d Cir. May 9, 2025)habeas; transfer of noncitizens; INA § 241(g); venue; jurisdiction; INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii); INA § 242(g); INA § 242(b)(9); other jurisdiction stripping provisions; government motion for stay; government motion for mandamus  Matter of Choc-Tut, 29 I&N Dec. 48 (BIA 2025)bond; burdens; DUI; criminal court findings Sandoval Argueta v. Bondi, No. 23-60080 (5th Cir. May 9, 2025)crime of child abuse; attempt; Loper Bright; no requirement for actual minor; INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(ii); motion top reconsider from abroad; judicial estoppel; DHS concessions Calvary Albuquerque Inc., et al v. Rubio, et al., No. 24-2066 (10th Cir. May 6, 2025)doctrine of consular nonreviewability; Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); R-1 religious visa; renumeration or payment for B-1 work; fraud or willful misrepresentation; statutory interpretationSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Demo Link!Click me too!Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Melissa Rogers joins the podcast for a conversation about how each of us can take steps to promote religious freedom and the common good in the United States today. After leading the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships in the Obama and Biden administrations, she shares her inside perspective on government, where we are right now, and how people can truly make an impact. Our religious freedom protects everyone's right to bring their faith to the public square, and you won't want to miss this conversation about opportunities we have as Americans to engage government at all levels and express ourselves in the face of injustice.    SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The genius of our constitutional protections for religious freedom Melissa Rogers served as the executive director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships in the Obama and Biden administrations. You can click here to read her extensive biography. She is the author of Faith in American Public Life, published in 2019. She has been on two earlier BJC podcasts: Respecting Religion, S2, Ep. 06: What's next? The Biden administration and religious liberty (2020) The Dangers of Christian Nationalism series, episode 9: Religious freedom, church-state law and Christian nationalism (2019), alongside Rabbi David Saperstein. You also can watch a video of that podcast.  NOTE: On April 21, we released a special podcast episode recorded at the same time as this conversation, focusing on the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia and the rule of law. Click here to hear that portion of the conversation.    Segment 2 (starting at 10:09): Our current moment as a country Here are links with more information from this portion of the conversation:  Melissa discussed the work of the federal government to protect places of worship. Protecting Houses of Worship is a helpful resource on this topic from the CISA (the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of the Department of Homeland Security).  She also mentioned the Biden-Harris administration's work on countering hate. One example is the United We Stand Summit in 2022: Taking Action to Prevent and Address Hate-Fueled Violence and Foster Unity. Click here to read more about the summit, or click here to watch the full summit proceedings. In addition, the Biden-Harris administration released the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism in 2023, and the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate in 2024. Learn more about BJC's Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign at ChristiansAgainstChristianNationalism.org.   Segment 3 (starting 16:52): Practical ways to take action  Here are a few resources and organizations to connect with if you are interested in responding to governmental actions, including by sharing information about their impact on you or your community:  DOGE cuts: Have you been impacted by DOGE cuts? Share your story with the Center for American Progress Article published by The Century Foundation: We Led Federal Agencies. Here Are 10 Ways That President Trump and Elon Musk's Attacks on Federal Workers Will Hurt You by Mark Zuckerman, Julie Su, Lauren McFerran, Gayle Goldin, Rachel West, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Ruth Friedman, Carole Johnson, Viviann Anguiano, Kayla Patrick and Loredana Valtierra Information on various lawsuits challenging governmental actions: Melissa mentioned the lawsuit challenging the recission of the “sensitive locations” guidance as a violation of religious freedom protections under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Read more about the lawsuit on our website, which is being led by Democracy Forward. Another lawsuit on sensitive locations is also being pursued by a group led by the Institute for Congressional Advocacy and Protection.  You can find more information about this and other pending lawsuits here: Updates from Democracy Forward  Just Security's litigation tracker  Legal actions of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) Resource on how to protect democracy: Protecting Democracy's Faithful Fight Toolkit Interested in calling your congressional representatives about issues you care about? Here's how you can find their contact information:  Click here to find your representative in the U.S. House Click here to find your U.S. Senators Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

In this episode, Scot Turner and Buzz Brockway discuss the current legislative session in Georgia, focusing on the Reigns Act, the Promise Scholarship funding, and the ongoing debates surrounding school choice and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They express their anxieties about the budget negotiations and the political theatrics that have characterized this session, while also emphasizing the importance of legislative oversight and the implications of proposed bills on education and religious freedoms. In this conversation, Scot Turner and Buzz Brockway delve into the implications of the Pastor Protection Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Georgia, discussing its limitations and the ongoing debate surrounding anti-discrimination laws. They explore the societal pressures that prevent discrimination, the political fallout from recent legislative actions, and the controversy over taxpayer funding for gender transition surgeries for felons. The discussion also touches on the impact of tariffs on trade and the precedent set by presidential powers in declaring emergencies.

In our second show of the second Trump administration, Amanda and Holly run through a list of recent events that point to a gross misunderstanding of what “religious freedom” means. They review the policy announcements made during the National Prayer Breakfast – including the creation of a task force to “eradicate anti-Christian bias” – and they look at how this administration's accusations and actions are limiting the religious freedom of several Christian groups who serve others. They also discuss the growing resistance, including court challenges and two opportunities for action to share your views with Congress and the Trump administration. In the final segment, Amanda and Holly share how BJC is celebrating Black History Month with a special invitation.    SHOW NOTESSegment 1 (starting at 00:38): The National Prayer Breakfast and an anti-Chrisitan bias task force Listen to Amanda and Holly's previous conversations on the National Prayer Breakfast in the following episodes: S1, Ep. 01 in 2020, beginning at 28:44 into that first episode of this podcast series. S4, Ep. 11 in 2023, exploring the many questions it raises and how it differs from the National Day of Prayer.  After the second event tied to the National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump released an executive order creating the White House Faith Office and announced his appointments to the office. On the same day, he released an executive order creating the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias. Amanda posted her reaction to that action on Bluesky. In her testimony before Congress in 2018, Amanda spoke about the need to acknowledge and address violence and rhetoric directed against religious minorities in the U.S. and abroad.    Segment 2 (starting at 14:29): Executive order on education, lawsuits on immigration, and the rescinding of the sensitive locations memo President Trump released an executive order titled “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families” and BJC shared our concerns in a statement about how such an act would undermine religious freedom.  The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship joined the lawsuit filed by Quaker congregations challenging the removal of the “sensitive locations” guidance as a violation of religious freedom protections under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Read more about the lawsuit on our website. After we recorded this podcast, another lawsuit was filed by a number of religious denominations and organizations, including two supporting bodies of BJC: Fellowship Southwest and Convención Bautista Hispana de Texas. Read more from Baptist News Global.   Segment 3 (starting 24:10): Attacks on faith-based service providers and two opportunities for action For more on the comments from Elon Musk, Mike Flynn and Vice President JD Vance targeting religious groups, read this article by Michelle Boorstein for The Washington Post: Attacks on Catholics, Lutherans suggest new Trump approach on religion “Defunding and demonizing the government's faith-based partners will make its job harder” is the title of the op-ed published by Religion News Service, written by Amanda alongside Aaron Dorfman from A More Perfect Union: The Jewish Partnership for Democracy and Jennifer Walker Thomas from Mormon Women for Ethical Government.   TWO ACTION STEPS YOU CAN TAKE IN THIS TIME: Sign the letter calling on Congress and President Trump to provide necessary oversight to the Department of Government Efficiency, ensuring that the freedom for religious organizations to practice and honor their faith is not infringed upon by government action. It is organized by BJC, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and A More Perfect Union: The Jewish Partnership for Democracy. Click here for the letter. Tell your member of Congress to oppose House Resolution 59, which could condemn a sermon by Bishop Mariann Budde as a “distorted message.” No one has to agree with her message to oppose this resolution, which wrongly indicates that the government should decide what is acceptable in matters of religion. We have a simple form you can use to send your own message. Click here for our form. We sent information about those two opportunities for action to people in our community who receive emails. If you would like to receive them, visit BJConline.org/subscribe to sign up for our email list! Amanda and Holly discussed the U.S. v. Skrmetti case in episode 6 of season 6.   Segment 4 (starting 31:39): Celebrating Black History Month Throughout Black History Month, BJC is sharing stories and insight on our Instagram and TikTok channels. Here are a few recent videos: Black history is American history Intersection of Black history and religious freedom Black artists INVITATION: You are invited to a special livestream event on Friday, February 28, which will re-launch the book African Americans and Religious Freedom: New Perspectives for Congregations and Communities. Click here to learn more about the book and sign up for the event! Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

The intersection of abortion and religion often grabs headlines, and this episode of Respecting Religion looks at recent developments in two states: Arizona and Indiana. Amanda and Holly discuss an Indiana case that involves free exercise arguments under state law to support abortion, and they examine the impact of Arizona's 1864 law that criminalizes abortion. Both situations are resulting from the tremendous change in the law after the Dobbs decision in 2022, leading to some unexpected situations.    SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The Arizona situation Our next episode will be our 100th episode! It's your chance to ask Amanda and Holly anything – send in your questions by April 29 to RespectingReligion@BJConline.org. Amanda and Holly previously discussed the aftermath of the Dobbs decision in episode 4 of season 4, released in October 2022. The show was titled “A religious freedom right to an abortion?”  The New York Times has this helpful resource that shows the differences in the laws regarding abortion in states across the country.  Amanda and Holly mentioned this article for Vox written by Nicole Naera: The history of Arizona's Civil War-era abortion ban After we recorded this program, the Arizona House voted to repeal the 1864 law, and the Arizona Senate is expected to vote on it next week. Read more in this Washington Post article by Caroline Kitchener and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez.    Segment 2 (starting at 12:12): The Indiana litigation For a more in-depth discussion of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), check out episode 6 of season 5: RFRA at 30. Read the opinion from the Indiana Appeals Court and the concurrence at this link. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

This week on Blasphemy in the Bluegrass, we will announce our holiday meeting. FFRF's update digs into the weaponization of the  Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Monica and Regina will rant about the app that the Speaker of the House admitted to use to monitor porn access. And Beneil and Sam will have some fun talking about the people who think the Earth is flat.  We'd like to thank Ketsa, SuRRism, Redproductions, AlexGrohl, Geoffharvey and Rock N Christmas 80s for this episode's music tracks. Show Notes: Atheist World: https://fb.me/e/6W13p1FKy FFRF: News Release Archives - Freedom From Religion Foundation (ffrf.org) Rant:https://newrepublic.com/post/176676/mike-johnson-son-monitoring-porn-intake-national-security-threat?fbclid=IwAR0AxrvPDgp7x8JDYxmrAJX7Wo4eQR7aliftSZKqZ1_KBej3QvKNRDrrBGY Our sponsors are: https://www.facebook.com/groups/louatheists/   https://www.facebook.com/groups/ffrfky/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/BNLou/ https://www.facebook.com/kysecular Thanks for your support.  

This year, we're celebrating 30 years of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy sponsored the bill and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. And today at First Liberty, we love the protections that RFRA is still providing for people of faith. For RFRA's anniversary, Kelly Shackelford joins us on this week's Live! to talk about the impact of this law on religious freedom. Kelly will share how this significant piece of legislation became law, discuss historic rulings that have come from it and update you on how RFRA continues to protect religious freedom today.

Thirty years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. It was a monumental event in religious liberty law at the time, and it remains part of an even more complex legal landscape of religious exemptions today. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at the standard set by RFRA and discuss how the law has been used in cases dealing with issues ranging from sacramental drug use to application of health insurance regulations. They discuss the non-controversial applications of RFRA, too, and the search for win-win solutions to complicated situations that arise in a religiously pluralistic society.   SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The need for and passage of RFRA Learn more about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on BJC's website: BJConline.org/RFRA Holly wrote a column on RFRA for Word&Way's “A Public Witness” newsletter, and you can read it here: Revisiting RFRA 30 years later Read the text of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act at this link. Amanda mentioned these two “high water mark” cases in the period before 1990: Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The 1990 Employment Division v. Smith is the case often known as the “peyote case.” We played audio from Justice Antonin Scalia reading the opinion of the Court from the bench, which you can listen to and read at this link. Watch the signing ceremony for RFRA on November 16, 1993, at this link on the YouTube channel of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Holly mentioned this printed resource available on our website, produced for the 20th anniversary of RFRA.    Segment 2 (starting at 14:16): Twists and turns of RFRA over 30 years Amanda mentioned the 1997 case that struck down RFRA as applied to the states: City of Boerne v. Flores. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) has the same standard as RFRA, but it has not been the subject of so many controversies. Holly and Amanda mentioned three other RFRA cases: Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal in 2006 (also known as the “UDV” case), Tanzin v. Tanvir in 2020, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores in 2014. Holly wrote about the application of RFRA to corporations in light of the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Examining RFRA in light of Hobby Lobby J. Brent Walker, former executive director of BJC at the time, wrote about the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Exploring Hobby Lobby's narrow victory   Segment 3 (starting at 32:28): The state of RFRA today Here are additional resources from BJC providing more context on the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Podcasts: S1, Ep. 06: Stay-at-home orders, religious freedom and RFRA (2020) S1, Ep. 12: Not a charm: Contraceptive mandate returns to the Supreme Court for the third time (2020) S3, Ep. 03: What's going on with religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates? (2021) Video: Watch this video of former BJC General Counsel Oliver “Buzz” Thomas discussing the origins of RFRA Resources from BJC on cases: Zubik v. Burwell (2016) Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) Additional reading: Do states need religious freedom legislation? By J. Brent Walker, 2015 Contraceptive mandate oral arguments shed light on underreported issues by Holly Hollman, 2014 RFRA's constitutionality called into question by J. Brent Walker, 2014 RFRA at 20: A retrospective by Holly Hollman, 2013 Remembering the origins of RFRA by J. Brent Walker, 2013 Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

Alison, Liz, and Rebecca are joined by Professor Marci Hamilton, legal icon and leading expert on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and extreme religious liberty. Professor Hamilton explains the origin story of RFRA, how it has led us to the emerging theocracy we face, and what Americans can do to reclaim true religious liberty before it's too late.  Submit a question for the holiday mailbag episode here!   Background Professor Marci Hamilton's bio CHILD USA, Prof. Hamilton's think tank FFRF's FAQ on RFRA  Congressional Research Service primer on RFRA   Cases City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) Employment Division v. Smith (1990) Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020)  FFRF's amicus brief, written by Marci Hamilton American Atheists and Center For Inquiry's amicus brief 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) U.S. Pastor Council (Braidwood Management) v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2023) Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012)     Check us out on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

This case presents an intersection between Native Americans’ free exercise rights and the Government’s power to regulate its territories. In 2014, Congress enacted the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The Act effectuated a trade of land between Resolution Copper, a mining company, and the federal government. Resolution Copper gave the government 5,300 acres of environmentally sensitive and culturally important lands. In exchange, the Government gave Resolution Copper 2,400 acres containing the third largest copper deposit in the world. Within the 2,400-acre tract of land is Chi’chil Bildagoteel, or “Oak Flat”, a place of central spiritual importance to the Western Apache. It is the direct corridor to their Creator and the site of numerous religious ceremonies. If Resolution Copper is given the land, the religious site will be destroyed and turned into a mine. Apache Stronghold sued to prohibit the land trade under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause, and under a theory that the trade violates the Government’s trust obligation to the Apaches. The United States argued that pursuant to its constitutional authority over the territories and existing caselaw that the trade was lawful. The District Court rejected a preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment by a 2–1 vote. Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented. And the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc this month. Apache Stronghold again presses its three claims. Centrally, it argues that the United States has substantially burdened the Apaches’ religious exercise by authorizing the transfer and destruction of Oak Flat—rendering their religious exercise impossible. The United States argues a line of precedent—culminating in Employment Division v. Smith—bar Apache Stronghold’s claims. The Government particularly relies on Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association, which permitted the U.S. Forest Service to develop a road through government land that would traverse a tribal holy site, stating, “Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land.” The United States argues that RFRA and the remainder of Apache Stronghold’s claims do not undermine the holding in Lyng. At stake is a religious site of central importance to a native tribe that cannot be replaced and development of the third largest copper deposit in the world. To discuss this exciting en banc hearing, the Federalist Society is pleased to host an excellent debate team. On behalf of Apache Stronghold, Luke Goodrich, VP and Senior Counsel for Becket, who is serving as lead counsel for Apache Stronghold. And defending the United States’ position, Anthony J. Ferate, who filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Support of Appellee United States. Featuring: Luke Goodrich, Vice President & Senior Counsel, Becket Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts

The Mandalorian is back, and with it legal questions, such as, are the Children or the Watch a cult or religion? If a religion, would the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibit prosecution of members of Children of the Watch for child endangerment? Was it desecration of a corpse to use IG-11's head and arm in a monument?  And did Grogu commit battery on the Anzellan? Join us for these legal issues and more. Support the showNo part of this recording should be considered legal advice.Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks

In this episode, Joe interviews Greg Lake, Esq.: Co-Founder of the Church of Psilomethoxin, author, and attorney specializing in working with entheogen-based religious practitioners in establishing their right to consume their sacraments under existing religious freedom laws. Psilomethoxin (4-Hydroxy-5-methoxydimethyltryptamine or 4-Hydroxy-5-MeO-DMT) was first synthesized in 2021 by mixing 5-MeO-DMT with psilocybin substrate, and after initial tests and months of user reports, it was deemed safe to use. Lake co-founded the Church of Psilomethoxin in 2022 with the goal of shifting the paradigm of religion to primary direct experiences and individual beliefs rather than a dogma everyone must follow, with a big focus on community and discussing the ultimate questions of life together – with Psilomethoxin as the sacrament of choice. While he prefers member-to-member referrals, there is an application on the site, and he hopes to grow the church through linking people up regionally, (eventually) training people to facilitate, and partnering with a data collection company to gather real-world data on both Psilomethoxin and on why people are seeking out psychedelic churches in the first place.  He discusses several cases that brought us here and inspired his work; why he believes Psilomethoxin won't be a target of the Federal Analogue Act; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the need for states to establish similar state legislation; the importance of new churches establishing evidence in the public record; how much courts take sincerity into consideration; and the concept that, while we're quick to think of the law as the enemy, courts often don't want to go after churches – religion is a sacred and intimate thing, so who is the victim if a court brings a church to court that hasn't harmed anyone? www.psychedelicstoday.com  

The House votes on a contraception bill, a new electoral college reform bill is coming before Congress, and military chaplains continue their fight for freedom from medical coercion… … and more on today’s CrossPolitic Daily News Brief. My name is Toby Sumpter and today is Friday, July 22, 2022. FLF Conference Plug: Folks, our upcoming Fight Laugh Feast Conference is just 4-months away from happening in Knoxville TN, October 6-8! Don't miss beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers which includes George Gilder, Jared Longshore, Pastor Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Pastor Toby, and we can’t say yet…also dont miss our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and stuff for the kids too…like jumpy castles and accidental infant baptisms! Also, did you know, you can save money, by signing up for a Club Membership. So, go to FightLaughFeast.com and sign up for a club membership and then register for the conference with that club discount. We can’t wait to fellowship, sing Psalms, and celebrate God’s goodness in Knoxville October 6-8. Sen. Blumenthal Thinks it’s Very important for congress to pass a bill guaranteeing access to drugs that prevent pregnancy. https://twitter.com/SenBlumenthal/status/1550216973199474688?s=20&t=atHLw9SjnQTHPyZrUIBPug 0:00-0:33 Meanwhile nations in Europe are already trying to incentivize couples to have more children because there is already a sansdemic, that is a growing population gap that is not replacing current population levels, leaving nations without workers. Turns out your need people to work and to provide, to have a thriving economy and nation. House votes to pass bill guaranteeing access to contraception https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/21/politics/contraception-access-house-vote/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2WKa07UvjlHP5qKWXPzgSm1ylUFA4JoREcolRudQTpD6e-nL7SviSLF1U The House voted Thursday to pass a bill that would guarantee access to contraception by protecting the right to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. The final vote was 228-195. Eight Republicans crossed over to vote with Democrats. Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Fred Upton of Michigan, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Maria Salazar of Florida and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois joined all the Democrats in voting for the bill. Two Republicans, Reps. Bob Gibbs of Ohio and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, voted present, meaning they took no position either way on the bill The vote falls among action House Democrats are trying to take following the Supreme Court's decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately in a concurring opinion that the high court should reconsider "substantive due process precedents" in decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut, that allows access to contraception. The Right to Contraception Act, introduced by Democratic Rep. Kathy Manning of North Carolina, aims to "protect a person's ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception," according to text of the bill. We should note that the text of the bill also includes “emergency contraceptives” in its list of what is included. Historically “emergency contraceptives” has also included chemicals intending to prevent or disrupt implantation of a fertilized egg. It should also be pointed out that some forms of oral contraception also include this as an intended function. Why would we trust Margaret Sanger and her descendants to give us good medicine? The mindless embrace of birth control by Christians got us into this mess. The White House said it "strongly supports" the bill in a statement Monday, adding "access to contraception is essential to ensuring all people have control over personal decisions about their own health, lives, and families." And making sure that we don’t have enough people to work productive jobs to provide for their families. This on the heels of Earlier this week, the House passed a bill that would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law, with 47 Republicans joining Democrats voting in favor of the bill. It is unclear whether the bill can pass the Senate where at least 10 Republicans are needed to side with Democrats to overcome the filibuster's 60-vote threshold. Redballoon Not so long ago, the American dream was alive and well. Employees who worked hard were rewarded, and employers looked for people who could do the job, not for people who had the right political views. RedBalloon.work is a job site designed to get us back to what made American businesses successful: free speech, hard work, and having fun. If you are a free speech employer who wants to hire employees who focus on their work and not identity politics, then post a job on RedBalloon. If you are an employee who is being censored at work or is being forced to comply with the current zeitgeist, post your resume on RedBalloon and look for a new job. redballoon.work, the job site where free speech is still alive! www.redballoon.work New Electoral College Count Reform Proposal https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-promising-new-electoral-count-act-reform-proposal/ The proposal takes the form of two bills. The first is sponsored by nine Republican senators (Susan Collins, Shelley Moore Capito, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis, and Todd Young) and seven Democratic senators (Joe Manchin, Ben Cardin, Chris Coons, Chris Murphy, Jeanne Shaheen, Kyrsten Sinema, and Mark Warner) and is focused on the Electoral Count Act itself. This bill clarifies that states must appoint presidential electors in accordance with the laws they each pass before election day and does away with the dangerously vague concept of a “failed election” in the original ECA. It requires that the governor of each state (or else another particular official specifically assigned this role by state law) be the person to certify the state’s slate of electors, to avoid the possibility of different officials sending different slates to Congress. It clarifies that the vice president’s role in counting electoral votes in Congress is purely ministerial and does not involve any sole decision-making authority. It raises the threshold for raising objections to a state’s electoral votes in Congress from one member of each house to one-fifth of the members of each house and narrows and clarifies the grounds for filing objections. And it allows for expedited federal judicial review of any challenges raised by a presidential candidate under already existing federal law to a state’s certification of its elections, but does not create any new right of action in federal court regarding state officials’ enforcement of state laws. Some Democrats wanted to go further, and give the federal courts more jurisdiction over the ways in which state officials enforce state election laws. This was a disastrously misguided idea, and it is very good that this proposal avoids any such path. This is a significant success for a number of Republicans who fought hard against that approach — particularly Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney. And it is the reason why I think this bill could get enough Republican votes to pass the Senate. The restraint shown in this proposal suggests this bipartisan group really wants to get these reforms enacted. The second bill, sponsored by most of the same senators as the first (with the exception of Republican senators Capito, Young, Sasse, and Graham) takes up some issues beyond the scope of the Electoral Count Act. It would increase the penalties for threatening election officials, improve the postal service’s procedures for handling mail-in ballots where those are allowed under state law, reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission, and increase the penalties for tampering with election records. These are modest reforms directed to modest problems, and the result is a bill that doesn’t do anything particularly important. If it’s necessary to get more Democrats to accept the restrained approach to ECA reform in the first bill, then I see no problem with it, and certainly some of what it proposes is worthwhile. Chaplains File Class Action Lawsuit Against DODhttps://uncoverdc.com/2022/07/21/vaccine-mandate-chaplains-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-dod/ Thirty-one military chaplains filed a class action lawsuit in May alleging the unconstitutional denial of religious accommodations relating to the vaccine mandate. The chaplains maintain they are protected by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Defendants in the case are the Department of Defense (DoD), several military branches, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, and the CDC. The lawsuit provides a fulsome review of the blatant, concerning changes in definitions and procedural rules to achieve politically driven agendas and goals that seemingly ignore service members’ most basic constitutional rights. Plaintiffs argue that the vaccine mandate and the military’s “no accommodation directive” are unconstitutional. Military chaplains who fail to comply with the vaccine mandate face “threat of disciplinary action” and “punitive discharge,” violating their “express statutory rights to follow their conscience as formed by their faith.” Defendants in the case contend the “venue is not proper,” Plaintiffs’ claims “are not ripe or justiciable prior to exhaustion of military remedies” (some requests have not yet been adjudicated), and the vaccine is the best remedy for “the health and readiness” of the military forces. The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) lays out in Section 533—the right of chaplains to conduct themselves according to their conscience or religious faith. Section 533 allows a chaplain to reject performing any duty that violates their conscience without repercussion or penalty. As the footnote on page 5 of the lawsuit explains, the genesis of the 2013 NDAA amendment grew out of social policy changes in 2012 during the Obama administration concerning “the repeal of the military ban on homosexual behavior and the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Defense of Marriage Act.” Chaplains at the time were concerned that they might have to perform wedding ceremonies that would violate their religious beliefs. Those protections were reinforced in both the 2016 and the 2018 NDAAs. Retired Army veteran Arthur A. Schulcz’s testimony filed on July 18, 2022, speaks poignantly to the difficulties of defining and implementing religious freedom policies in the military in recent years. He fought to properly define the role of chaplains in the military in December 2012, working with Congress in anticipation of amendments to the 2013 NDAA to “defend chaplains’ rights to authentically represent their faith to the military, especially in their speech.” He describes the discrimination many in the military have experienced over the years if they dared speak against the prevailing political agenda. The complaint states military chaplains are “unique military officers” because they are both commissioned officers and clergy. As such, they “raise unique statutory and constitutional religious liberty claims, in addition to the claims for systematic violations of service members’ RFRA and First Amendment rights that several courts have recently found Military Defendants likely committed.” The lawsuit states congressional authority concerning honoring and protecting military chaplains’ conscience and faith has been violated by the mandate. Chaplains are unique in their roles as service members because they are afforded additional First Amendment protections as a result of their clerical roles. It has to do with the potential violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Psalm of the Day: St. Patrick’s Breastplate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SXXz5k_F_I&list=PL1C638E88FCA83B7A&index=22 0:18-1:24 Amen! This is Toby Sumpter with CrossPolitic News. Remember you can always find the links to our news stories and these psalms at crosspolitic dot com – just click on the daily news brief and follow the links. Or find them on our App: just search “Fight Laugh Feast” in your favorite app store and never miss a show. If this content is helpful to you, would you please consider becoming a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member? We are building a cancel-proof news and media network with Christ at the center, and we can’t do it without your help. Join today and get a $100 discount at the Fight Laugh Feast conference in Knoxville, TN Oct. 6-8, and have a great day.

The House votes on a contraception bill, a new electoral college reform bill is coming before Congress, and military chaplains continue their fight for freedom from medical coercion… … and more on today’s CrossPolitic Daily News Brief. My name is Toby Sumpter and today is Friday, July 22, 2022. FLF Conference Plug: Folks, our upcoming Fight Laugh Feast Conference is just 4-months away from happening in Knoxville TN, October 6-8! Don't miss beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers which includes George Gilder, Jared Longshore, Pastor Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Pastor Toby, and we can’t say yet…also dont miss our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and stuff for the kids too…like jumpy castles and accidental infant baptisms! Also, did you know, you can save money, by signing up for a Club Membership. So, go to FightLaughFeast.com and sign up for a club membership and then register for the conference with that club discount. We can’t wait to fellowship, sing Psalms, and celebrate God’s goodness in Knoxville October 6-8. Sen. Blumenthal Thinks it’s Very important for congress to pass a bill guaranteeing access to drugs that prevent pregnancy. https://twitter.com/SenBlumenthal/status/1550216973199474688?s=20&t=atHLw9SjnQTHPyZrUIBPug 0:00-0:33 Meanwhile nations in Europe are already trying to incentivize couples to have more children because there is already a sansdemic, that is a growing population gap that is not replacing current population levels, leaving nations without workers. Turns out your need people to work and to provide, to have a thriving economy and nation. House votes to pass bill guaranteeing access to contraception https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/21/politics/contraception-access-house-vote/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2WKa07UvjlHP5qKWXPzgSm1ylUFA4JoREcolRudQTpD6e-nL7SviSLF1U The House voted Thursday to pass a bill that would guarantee access to contraception by protecting the right to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. The final vote was 228-195. Eight Republicans crossed over to vote with Democrats. Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Fred Upton of Michigan, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Maria Salazar of Florida and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois joined all the Democrats in voting for the bill. Two Republicans, Reps. Bob Gibbs of Ohio and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, voted present, meaning they took no position either way on the bill The vote falls among action House Democrats are trying to take following the Supreme Court's decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately in a concurring opinion that the high court should reconsider "substantive due process precedents" in decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut, that allows access to contraception. The Right to Contraception Act, introduced by Democratic Rep. Kathy Manning of North Carolina, aims to "protect a person's ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception," according to text of the bill. We should note that the text of the bill also includes “emergency contraceptives” in its list of what is included. Historically “emergency contraceptives” has also included chemicals intending to prevent or disrupt implantation of a fertilized egg. It should also be pointed out that some forms of oral contraception also include this as an intended function. Why would we trust Margaret Sanger and her descendants to give us good medicine? The mindless embrace of birth control by Christians got us into this mess. The White House said it "strongly supports" the bill in a statement Monday, adding "access to contraception is essential to ensuring all people have control over personal decisions about their own health, lives, and families." And making sure that we don’t have enough people to work productive jobs to provide for their families. This on the heels of Earlier this week, the House passed a bill that would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law, with 47 Republicans joining Democrats voting in favor of the bill. It is unclear whether the bill can pass the Senate where at least 10 Republicans are needed to side with Democrats to overcome the filibuster's 60-vote threshold. Redballoon Not so long ago, the American dream was alive and well. Employees who worked hard were rewarded, and employers looked for people who could do the job, not for people who had the right political views. RedBalloon.work is a job site designed to get us back to what made American businesses successful: free speech, hard work, and having fun. If you are a free speech employer who wants to hire employees who focus on their work and not identity politics, then post a job on RedBalloon. If you are an employee who is being censored at work or is being forced to comply with the current zeitgeist, post your resume on RedBalloon and look for a new job. redballoon.work, the job site where free speech is still alive! www.redballoon.work New Electoral College Count Reform Proposal https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-promising-new-electoral-count-act-reform-proposal/ The proposal takes the form of two bills. The first is sponsored by nine Republican senators (Susan Collins, Shelley Moore Capito, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis, and Todd Young) and seven Democratic senators (Joe Manchin, Ben Cardin, Chris Coons, Chris Murphy, Jeanne Shaheen, Kyrsten Sinema, and Mark Warner) and is focused on the Electoral Count Act itself. This bill clarifies that states must appoint presidential electors in accordance with the laws they each pass before election day and does away with the dangerously vague concept of a “failed election” in the original ECA. It requires that the governor of each state (or else another particular official specifically assigned this role by state law) be the person to certify the state’s slate of electors, to avoid the possibility of different officials sending different slates to Congress. It clarifies that the vice president’s role in counting electoral votes in Congress is purely ministerial and does not involve any sole decision-making authority. It raises the threshold for raising objections to a state’s electoral votes in Congress from one member of each house to one-fifth of the members of each house and narrows and clarifies the grounds for filing objections. And it allows for expedited federal judicial review of any challenges raised by a presidential candidate under already existing federal law to a state’s certification of its elections, but does not create any new right of action in federal court regarding state officials’ enforcement of state laws. Some Democrats wanted to go further, and give the federal courts more jurisdiction over the ways in which state officials enforce state election laws. This was a disastrously misguided idea, and it is very good that this proposal avoids any such path. This is a significant success for a number of Republicans who fought hard against that approach — particularly Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney. And it is the reason why I think this bill could get enough Republican votes to pass the Senate. The restraint shown in this proposal suggests this bipartisan group really wants to get these reforms enacted. The second bill, sponsored by most of the same senators as the first (with the exception of Republican senators Capito, Young, Sasse, and Graham) takes up some issues beyond the scope of the Electoral Count Act. It would increase the penalties for threatening election officials, improve the postal service’s procedures for handling mail-in ballots where those are allowed under state law, reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission, and increase the penalties for tampering with election records. These are modest reforms directed to modest problems, and the result is a bill that doesn’t do anything particularly important. If it’s necessary to get more Democrats to accept the restrained approach to ECA reform in the first bill, then I see no problem with it, and certainly some of what it proposes is worthwhile. Chaplains File Class Action Lawsuit Against DODhttps://uncoverdc.com/2022/07/21/vaccine-mandate-chaplains-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-dod/ Thirty-one military chaplains filed a class action lawsuit in May alleging the unconstitutional denial of religious accommodations relating to the vaccine mandate. The chaplains maintain they are protected by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Defendants in the case are the Department of Defense (DoD), several military branches, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, and the CDC. The lawsuit provides a fulsome review of the blatant, concerning changes in definitions and procedural rules to achieve politically driven agendas and goals that seemingly ignore service members’ most basic constitutional rights. Plaintiffs argue that the vaccine mandate and the military’s “no accommodation directive” are unconstitutional. Military chaplains who fail to comply with the vaccine mandate face “threat of disciplinary action” and “punitive discharge,” violating their “express statutory rights to follow their conscience as formed by their faith.” Defendants in the case contend the “venue is not proper,” Plaintiffs’ claims “are not ripe or justiciable prior to exhaustion of military remedies” (some requests have not yet been adjudicated), and the vaccine is the best remedy for “the health and readiness” of the military forces. The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) lays out in Section 533—the right of chaplains to conduct themselves according to their conscience or religious faith. Section 533 allows a chaplain to reject performing any duty that violates their conscience without repercussion or penalty. As the footnote on page 5 of the lawsuit explains, the genesis of the 2013 NDAA amendment grew out of social policy changes in 2012 during the Obama administration concerning “the repeal of the military ban on homosexual behavior and the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Defense of Marriage Act.” Chaplains at the time were concerned that they might have to perform wedding ceremonies that would violate their religious beliefs. Those protections were reinforced in both the 2016 and the 2018 NDAAs. Retired Army veteran Arthur A. Schulcz’s testimony filed on July 18, 2022, speaks poignantly to the difficulties of defining and implementing religious freedom policies in the military in recent years. He fought to properly define the role of chaplains in the military in December 2012, working with Congress in anticipation of amendments to the 2013 NDAA to “defend chaplains’ rights to authentically represent their faith to the military, especially in their speech.” He describes the discrimination many in the military have experienced over the years if they dared speak against the prevailing political agenda. The complaint states military chaplains are “unique military officers” because they are both commissioned officers and clergy. As such, they “raise unique statutory and constitutional religious liberty claims, in addition to the claims for systematic violations of service members’ RFRA and First Amendment rights that several courts have recently found Military Defendants likely committed.” The lawsuit states congressional authority concerning honoring and protecting military chaplains’ conscience and faith has been violated by the mandate. Chaplains are unique in their roles as service members because they are afforded additional First Amendment protections as a result of their clerical roles. It has to do with the potential violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Psalm of the Day: St. Patrick’s Breastplate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SXXz5k_F_I&list=PL1C638E88FCA83B7A&index=22 0:18-1:24 Amen! This is Toby Sumpter with CrossPolitic News. Remember you can always find the links to our news stories and these psalms at crosspolitic dot com – just click on the daily news brief and follow the links. Or find them on our App: just search “Fight Laugh Feast” in your favorite app store and never miss a show. If this content is helpful to you, would you please consider becoming a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member? We are building a cancel-proof news and media network with Christ at the center, and we can’t do it without your help. Join today and get a $100 discount at the Fight Laugh Feast conference in Knoxville, TN Oct. 6-8, and have a great day.

Tanzin v Tanvir, (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving legal remedies that could be sought by litigants against federal officials for violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In a unanimous decision issued December 10, 2020, the court ruled that the Act allowed for litigants to seek not only injunctive relief but also monetary damages. Background. At the center of the case were three men of the Muslim community with either U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the men were approached by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents for questioning but not for any involvement of terrorist activity. Instead, the FBI wanted the men to serve "as government spies in their religious communities." The men refused, and the FBI pushed the matter by threatening to add their names to the Transportation Security Administration's No Fly List. The men continued to refuse to participate, and the FBI followed through with the threat around 2013. The men tried repeatedly to have their names removed through the TSA but were directed to the FBI, which continued to state that if they co-operated by becoming informants in their Muslim communities, they would have their names removed. The men lost money on plane tickets that they could not use and also could not travel to see their families overseas or for other work-related functions. Lower courts. The three men sued the FBI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Upon the commencement of legal action, the FBI took steps to remove their names from the No Fly List and stated that the case should be considered moot. The plaintiffs continued the case, seeking monetary compensation, and asserted that it was allowed for by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which allows for one to "obtain appropriate relief against a government" when one's religious rights are harmed by a federal officer of the government. The District Court ruled to dismiss the case by asserting that the "appropriate relief" clause of the RFRA does not allow for monetary recovery from such damages and that with the removal from the No Fly List, there were no further remedies that the men could pursue. The men appealed to the Second Circuit Appeals Court, which reversed the District Court's decision in May 2018, and allowed their case to go forward. The Second Circuit found the District Court erred in the reading of the RFRA since the suit was directed at the specific agents of the FBI whose actions had adversely affected the men's religious freedom, and monetary compensation was considered part of the appropriate relief that could be awarded. The Second Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc, with multiple judges dissenting. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

While attending the National Religious Broadcasters Convention near Dallas, Monte Larrick had the opportunity to speak with Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty Institute, the largest legal firm in the U.S. solely focused on protecting religious freedom for all Americans. Their conversation begins with a discussion of the dangers of the Equality Act, or as Newt Gingrich calls it “the LGBT Supremacy Act.” Mr. Shackelford explains how passage of this act would gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by launching a far-reaching assault on religious freedom in all areas of society. Monte and Mr. Shackelford examine how the Equality Act facilitates the Left's redefinition of the word “sex,” affects parental, student, employer and employee rights, and also advances abortion. Additionally, Mr. Shackelford shares about some of the cases First Liberty Institute has successfully defended and he encourages parents to get involved (run for office!) with their local school board. To learn more about First Liberty Institute and Kelly Shackelford, click HERE and HERE.

While attending the National Religious Broadcasters Convention near Dallas, Monte Larrick had the opportunity to speak with Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty Institute, the largest legal firm in the U.S. solely focused on protecting religious freedom for all Americans. Their conversation begins with a discussion of the dangers of the Equality Act, or as Newt Gingrich calls it “the LGBT Supremacy Act.” Mr. Shackelford explains how passage of this act would gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by launching a far-reaching assault on religious freedom in all areas of society.… Continue Reading

“What is happening in America really scares me!” Those were the words of a listener to The Stand. It should indeed scare this good Christian lady who wrote, and in fact, it should scare all of us, that is all of WE THE PEOPLE who love America, what it is, and what it should be.It is no surprise that there are those by the millions, perhaps even tens of millions, who wish to destroy this great Country. They are Marxists, not socialists, Nihilists, anarchists, willing to use violence, intimidation, ridicule and above all BELIE. There is no such thing for them as truth, or even fact for that matter, but only that which advances the cause, their destructive cause. They regard themselves as champions of the era of:        POST TRUTH.These Marxists are men and women like George Soros, Saul Alinsky and the many who work under the umbrella of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, just to name two such organizations concerned only with getting power, absolute political power, total influence, control of all things financial: the money and the prestige which such power, influence and money allow. To that end, they have hijacked the Democratic Party, they operate somewhat overtly but mostly covertly, patient but powerful knowing that their day will come. As former President Barack Hussein Obama said of them and himself:         “WE are the ones we have been waiting for!”Now comes from this democratically controlled House of Representatives the so called EQUALITY ACT, which is in essence and at its core the INEQUALITY ACT. A writer for the New York Post called this vicious piece of legislation:         AN ORWELLIAN HORROR,and indeed it is. This Equality Act, also known as H.R.5 redefines federal civil rights laws and in particular “updates” the laws which Congress passed to combat racism, namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Essentially, the so called EQUALITY ACT adds to the Civil Rights the highly ideological concepts about sex and gender which are revolutionary in every conceivable way. H.R.5 essentially erases SEX as a legal category with all the dire consequences which result. Said one commentator:“For people, for businesses, for churches, and for ministries of faith, the Equality Act is a threat to life as we know it in our nation today. It's a real game changer!”The radical, progressive, socialistic – Marxist politicians of the Democratic Party are determined that this bill will pass. It now goes to the Senate, having been passed (barely so) by the House for Senate consideration and hopefully passage. Thankfully, for God–fearing Americans, there remains the filibuster in the Senate which when utilized by oppositional Senators, can delay the passage of this legislative monstrosity for some time. Hopefully, that happens. Listen carefully to what this bill proposes.Schools, all schools, churches and hospitals would be forced to accept the governments beliefs and mandates about:         SEXUAL ORIENTATION          GENDER IDENTITY Any person, no matter the biological gender, could identify as any kind of sex so desired and every other person, and all of society would be required to recognize that person as such. Biological men could identify as women and consequently, be given access to women's privacy areas. Those very biological men could enter what are now women's restrooms. They could also take showers with them. They could enter, these biological men, homeless shelters and even be put in women's prisons. These biological males, who now must be recognized as women could enter, participate, compete in and dominate girls and women's sports as some already have! That, as many have said, would be the end of women's sports and erase overnight all the tremendous gains which women have made in sports, and in fact, in many other professional fields as well. Suppose you had a high school daughter competing in sports, doing well and in comes a biological man and wins, breaking all biological female records. How would you feel? That, my dear American woman, would happen over and again if this INEQUALITY ACT PASSES. By the way, that biological male masquerading as a female would be showering after the event naked with your high school daughter! Would you stand for that?More. As the terms men and women are redefined, and more importantly, SEX is redefined or better yet for these radicals eliminated as a descriptive term altogether, speech would change and radically so. The use of pronouns would be changed, and to refer to him who has biologically changed to her as he would be forbidden and the use of any such now improper terminology would not only be illegal but potentially criminal in some cases. Schools would be coerced to instruct first, second and third graders that they can choose to be a boy or a girl, or neither, or BOTH! That of course would make biological sex and the science behind it a relic of the past. Can you believe this? But it is there, and here, and with a real potentiality to become the law of the land with incredible criminal and civil penalties for noncompliance. Can you possibly let this happen, Christians and conservatives, can you? These radical – progressive – socialists depend upon intimidation and your lack of involvement. They count upon you and me being afraid to stand up, protest and do everything in our power to make certain that this EQUALITY ACT does not become the law of the land. Will you do that? You must, YOU MUST! In short, this dastardly act erases, utterly eliminates sex as a distinct legal category. A first grader can decide what he or she wants to be. A young child at that age would have the authority to determine sexual orientation and gender identity no matter what the parents say or think. In fact, the freedom of speech of the parents at that level would be taken away, even penalized should the parent wish to exercise control or discipline over the young child. The Equality Act is written in such broad terms and perspectives that virtually any kind of definition can apply. Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden have publicly stated that the passage of THE EQUALITY ACT is their number one priority. This man and woman, unless of course they have decided to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, represent themselves as professing and believing Roman Catholics. They seek the comfort, blessings and benefits of the Catholic Church while at the same time championing this unbelievable, unholy and unchristian legislation, actions of gross hypocrisy if there ever were some. I for one hope the church recognizes this conduct and perhaps excommunication is warranted, don't you think?That is because, further, this act really fosters abortion. It does away with the Hyde Amendment which forbids the federal government to pay for abortions so that now all abortions can be financed by the federal government. It further exempts itself from any requirements of the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT (RFRA) which exempts religious organizations from these requirements and in fact, takes away the further exemption of the right of religious organizations to hire those who believe as they do. Creative professionals like Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman could be forced to create product and express messages through their art that violate their biblical beliefs about marriage and biological sex. The traditional definition of marriage, of course, that between one man and one woman would be done away with, even forbidden. Students attending bible believing schools would not be eligible for federal loans. And those very same schools could be denied or threatened with the loss of ACCREDITATION because of their biblical beliefs. And of course, the bible, THE HOLY BIBLE, would be labeled and regarded as nothing more than:        HATE SPEECH. Doctors and medical professionals would be required to engage in gender transition treatments, including of course religious based hospitals no matter their beliefs. And, the INEQUALITY ACT regards any refusal to offer abortion as:PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATIONwith severe penalties, not only civil but in some cases criminal as a result. Can you believe this? And these, all of these my fellow Americans are only some of the incredible, dastardly terms and conditions of this vicious bill. Please don't let it pass. Please contact your representative or Senator, especially your Senator and ask – beg him or her not to allow this incredible and un–American piece of legislation to pass. And one more thing, one more unbelievable thing. Anyone who attempts to secure employment who thinks that he or she has been discriminated against under the terms of the EQUALITY ACT can bring litigation against that employer who failed to hire that person for whatever reason, if in the:         PERCEPTION AND BELIEF that the hire did not occur because of discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that person can sue the employer without evidence or proof of any kind of such discrimination. Can you believe that? Without the protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Christian employers would be sued over and again. Nothing could be more unconstitutional, radically against the First Amendment, nothing.That, my fellow Americans, epitomizes what the Democratic Party has become. I state boldly that this once great party has become thoroughly un–American, determined to radically change morals, values and lifestyle and totally eviscerate or even eliminate much or all of religion, including and especially Christianity. You and I may have our last chance to stand up, protest, boycott and thoroughly publicize what this party has become and in elections 2022:         VOTE THEM OUT! Vote them out before it is too late. Don't let this EQUALITY ACT, which is nothing more than the INEQUALITY ACT pass, don't let that happen! That would be the end of an unbelievable amount of freedoms and, those freedoms once lost:         ARE LOST FOREVER!

This episode gives an overview of the back-and-forth between the Supreme Court and Congress over the issue of religious free exercise that led to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993 and the Supreme Court's limiting of the application of RFRA only to federal law in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores (1997).

Dave is a veteran cannabis advocate and previous dispensary owner in California. We dive deep in to the story of how his church was raided, Prop 215, Prop 64, Measure Z, asset forfeiture, the War on Drugs, the Portugal experiment, medicine churches, decriminalization, federal descheduling and rescheduing and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). We go all the way down the rabbit hole and come back out with fresh tails and perspectives and how to dig our way out of the drug war we are waging against our own selves.

They won!The Democrats won and now control Presidency, House and Senate. Sounds like 2008 all over again, does it not my fellow Americans? Remember those times some 12 years ago when Obama, Schumer and Pelosi controlled all three branches of government and how CHANGE, fundamental and substantial change to the America we love began. Get ready, my fellow Americans, for progressive, radical America PHASE II.Fundamental change will occur in America beginning January 20, 2021. There is little doubt that the elections were contaminated with fraud, and negligence and even indifference and absentee voting in America showed its weaknesses, including and especially the propensity for fraud. The issue is not whether or not fraud existed but whether or not fraudulent votes tipped the election of any political race one way or another. We will probably never know that, and since the Supreme Court has indicated it does not intend to review election results unless there is conclusive and clear evidence of fraud, the elections are final. In the Georgia Senatorial races, critical to conservatives and Republicans, Warnock beat Loeffler seemingly by a clear margin but Ossoff defeated Perdue by a razor thin margin and that election may be subject to recount or judicial review. For now, at least, Republicans need to accept the fact that the Senate will be divided 50–50 and to the detriment of conservative and constitutional America, Vice President Kamala Harris will cast the deciding vote in the event of tie. Even though Republicans and conservatives gained in the House of Representatives, Democrats control and will be able to pass virtually any legislation they wish unless, UNLESS there are right thinking centrist Democrats, middle of the road, truly American no matter how liberal (but not radical or progressive) who do not toe the party line. What an interesting two years it will be until we the people have once again an opportunity to elect our House of Representatives. In the first 100 days, Biden has promised to eliminate and change so many of the regulations and executive orders which President Trump issued and put in place. The agencies, the supposed arms of the Congress and the SWAMP which implements and is the real legislative force will once again introduce a choking regulation to America, and especially American business and all things financial and a certain economic paralysis will once again occur. Massive new taxes will happen, count on it. The Green New Deal in some form or perhaps even in the next four years altogether will become law and there will be all out political war against fossil fuels and especially fracking. Biden and the Senate may even resort to the PACKING of the Supreme Court, adding liberal and progressive Justices to the point where liberals once again fully control the decision making of America's highest legal authority. All would be disasters, fraught with radical change in every conceivable way. We the people better be ready, and even more ready to stand up, resist, fight back against radicalism in any form and be ready with all of our might to protect our beloved Constitution and the rule of law. If we do not, GOODBYE AMERICA.But perhaps the most important and matter of greatest concern will be the passage of the so called EQUALITY ACT, now virtually assured. This is a frightening piece of legislation for Republicans, conservatives, Christians and all people of faith. This Act is anything but EQUAL. In fact, even as it champions the rights and creates preferences for LGBTQIA, it will absolutely eviscerate so much of the religious rights and freedoms, the very first freedom and perhaps the most important one to our Founding Fathers as embodied in the First Amendment of our Constitution. No matter that the Constitution explicitly and clearly states:CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW AFFECTING, ABRIDGING OR PREVENTING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION,the so called Equality Act does just that. This Act will make it law for our great country, and the new sexual orthodoxy will be required in every aspect of American life including enormous preferences for LGBTQIA, and especially transgenders, establishing the rights of any person to decide their sexual orientation and gender identity. The biological differences between men and women, male and female, will be utterly ignored if not abolished. The new sexual orthodoxy will be taught in all educational institutions, especially and alarmingly to the young from kindergarten through high school. This Act, THE EQUALITY ACT, can be found online or in congressional records and information, my fellow Americans, and you should read it and to the best of your ability, understand what is in it. You must for it will drastically, radically, permanently affect your life and the lives of all Americans. FIND IT AND READ IT!The following are just some of the harmful and horrendous things which this EQUALITY ACT will codify and force you to accept and live by.LGBTQIA will not have an equality in America with all others, but actually any number of preferences and amplified rights which we the ordinary American people do not have. That is especially so with regard to hiring and employment. This Act as now written provides that should a member of the LGBTQIA factions apply for employment, and are denied as employers consider others more qualified and better suited for the job at hand and the business doing the hiring, an applicant so denied can form personally and individually the:            PERCEPTION AND BELIEF that the hiring turned down was in fact discrimination and a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Based on that mere perception or belief, the individual not hired would have the right to sue the employer, and sue for considerable damages with the legal force of the state providing attorneys and agency clout in behalf of the aggrieved (perceived) gay or transgender employee applicant and of course the employer would be forced to defend with the business attorneys and the finances of the business and the owners themselves. Equally difficult and disastrous, the employer would have the:            BURDEN OF PROOFthat the non–hire was not discriminatory, and that the person actually hired for the job was in fact better, superior, objectively more qualified. Personality, relatability, employee fit, all subjective even though all are important in a hiring process would be irrelevant, subjective and arbitrary so the law would indicate. These principles at work would be disastrous to Christian institutions, businesses, education including colleges, grammar schools, adoption agencies and more. Tragically, the burden of proof would be on the employer to prove that the person hired in preference to the LGBTQIA applicant was better, superior, more fit for the job than the applicant denied. Such a burden of proof would be massive, an enormous amount of work, and an incredible expense. Litigation could go on for months, and months, and the cost to the employer would be enormous and in some cases, financially destructive. The employer would always lose even if the employer wins the litigation. And more. Men identifying as women, redesigning their sexual orientation and gender identity would be allowed to compete with female athletes in any sport or competition. All the rights which women have gained beginning with the 1964 Civil Rights Act would be done away with and biological men would undoubtedly dominate biological female sports. All that person would need to do is identify as a woman and there is nothing any educational or other entity could do to prevent involvement. Adoption agencies which required the adoption of any child to be accomplished by a married couple, father and mother, MALE AND FEMALE, would be shut down and no funding of any kind would be allowed.Christian colleges and educational institutions which do not recognize or honor the new sexual orthodoxy would be denied any funding and students of those institutions would not be allowed student loans from any governmental agency, including and especially the federal government.Even more harmful to all things religion is the provision in THE EQUALITY ACT which makes reference to the:            RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT (RFRA)which can no longer provide any defense in any way for the protection of religious rights, beliefs and views as practiced by any educational, cultural or business entity. NONE WHATSOEVER! That wonderful act protecting religious freedoms was passed by the Congress in 1992 with virtual unanimous support. No matter, the EQUALITY ACT (what a farse) would do away with all protections of any kind for anything religious. The first freedom would be gutted and really rendered of no force and effect. And more. Men would have access to female bathrooms and showers and any other private place. Again, all the biological male needs to do is declare that he is now a she and as a newly identified sexual orientation and gender identity. Any biological female, especially the young, should be deeply concerned with this fundamental change and do everything possible to protect against it. What a world.Certain commonly used pronouns and nouns, now taken for granted, like father and mother, and ironically for Christians the word AMEN would be banned. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, hypocrite to the core (don't forget she is supposedly Roman Catholic) would ban all such and more from House dialogue, legislation and usage generally. Get this Christians. AMEN WOULD NOW BE AWOMEN! Unbelievable, is it not? The new orthodoxy fully and completely establishes the politically correct.Insurance, that is you and I, would pay for all transgender procedures, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Creative professionals like Baker Jack Phillips would be forbidden under penalty of criminal proceedings from refusing to do business with LGBTQIA. And more. Much more. Find it, read it, and understand it. And find a way to talk to your federal Congresspersons, and Senators, and although undoubtedly a waste of time, go after the White House (Biden). It is time now, once and for all, THE LAST TIME my fellow Americans when you can stand up for unbridled, unabridged, uncorrupted freedom of religion and in fact all freedoms granted to us by our Constitution. If you don't stand up now, those freedoms will be lost forever.Personally, I have concern for so many Christians. They may listen, they may hear the bad news, they may talk about these horrendous progressive, radical things happening in America but for the most part, we the Christian people do:            NOTHING.We don't act. March. Protest. Support organizations that really go after these radical, hate – America individuals and we lose, we lose time and again. I pray you, all of us are convicted, concerned, even fearful for our families, friends and our beloved countries. That, all of that, is the only thing that will motivate us to:            ACT.Against the so called Equality Act and in fact all things progressive, radical and anti-American which we can expect to happen time after time in the next four years. You have a duty as we do to:            GOD AND COUNTRYif you wish the rights, the freedoms on the one hand then you have the DUTY to stand up and protect those rights. I pray with all my heart that you, that all of us will do just that. 

On December 10, the Supreme Court decided the case of Tanzin v. Tanvir. The 8-0 ruling affirmed the judgement of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that "appropriate relief" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) includes claims for money damages against Government officials in their individual capacities. Stephanie Taub of First Liberty joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications. Feauturing: -- Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

On December 10, 2020 the Supreme Court decided the case of Tanzin v. Tanvir. In an 8-0 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgement of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that "appropriate relief" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) includes claims for money damages against government officials in their individual capacities.Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel at First Liberty, joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications.

NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES.Such is the unconditional standard of the Constitution of the United States Article VI – Oaths. So that, when any individual runs as candidate for any federal office, or as otherwise appointed to or hired for any federal position or trust, no religious test of any kind can be given to that individual by anyone, including and especially Congress.Obviously, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat from the once great state of California never read or simply chose to ignore such a constitutional mandate when she and her committee vetted Amy Coney Barrett for qualification on the United States Court of Appeals when Feinstein thought her unqualified for being a strong, committed and convicted Roman Catholic telling her:         THE DOGMA (CATHOLIC DOGMA) RUNS DEEPS IN YOU.And, indeed it did then, last year and it still does in the heart and soul of Mrs. Barrett who now seeks to qualify for the vacant seat on the United States Supreme Court, nominated by President Trump to become the ninth United States Justice of the Supreme Court.Mrs. Barrett is indeed a strong and committed Christian, a practicing Catholic and a member with her husband of the entity PEOPLE OF PRAISE. This movement emphasizes personal conversion and evangelizing the world with the teachings of Christ. The organization is charismatic in nature, emphasizing personal conversion and salvation with millions of members the world over. It is dynamic, effective and especially in South Bend, Indiana, home of the great University of Notre Dame and of the People of Praise local chapter to which Barrett belongs, socially active and effective. You can well imagine how the Godless, anti–religion progressives and radicals have severe apoplexy at the thought of Barrett on the Supreme Court. Of course these bigots, virtually all Democrats in nature care little that Mrs. Barrett is a wife, and a good one, and a mother of seven children, and a very good one, an outstanding citizen of this great country, socially active and caring in every way. Barrett is a highly respected professor at the University of Notre Dame. She is an accomplished legal scholar, always well prepared for every case before her, knows the law and most importantly for we the people, Barrett is a constitutionalist, a textualist, an originalist, and one who will faithfully apply the law of the Constitution and not depart therefrom in decision making as other Supreme Court Justices do. Sounds like a real winner to me, what do you think?Democrats, Schumer and Pelosites, whine and moan that this appointment should be made by the next elected President of the United States. When President Trump heard that, he moved aggressively to nominate Barrett even now, and as quickly as possible, knowing that with the Republican Senate majority, there would be enough votes to confirm Barrett and have her seated on the Supreme Court before the end of the year. You can be certain that professor Amy Coney Barrett will be the ninth Justice of the United States Supreme Court as soon as possible. WE THE PEOPLE will be far better off as she legally decides and participates in the making of the ultimate rules of law (Supreme Court decisions) which effect our great country and all of us.It is so interesting the double standards of Democrats, especially when it comes to Catholics. Democrats would do virtually anything to disqualify Barrett and prevent her from becoming a Justice, because she is TOO CATHOLIC, too real, too practicing, too faithful in her faith. But these very same Democrats have no problem touting the Catholicism of Joe Biden, this Catholic Johnny-come-lately who now tells us after all these years that he goes to Catholic church, carries rosary beads in his pocket wherever he goes, takes Communion or tries to, and attempts to live by the morals and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. And this very same man, now running for President of the United States, good Catholic as he purports to be, champions, aggressively champions abortion, has indicated he will defend the right to an abortion under virtually any circumstances and will do his best to codify, that is put into law the tenets of that bastardly case ROE V. WADE if he is elected. Biden as well openly champions the gay agenda, LGBTQ, and he, along with Senator Schumer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have promised that, as a first presidential – congressional act, they will see to the passage of the Equality Act which, as one commentator has stated:“Weaponizes the nation's civil rights laws against Americans who don't conform to the LGBTQ agenda.”Such a bill would establish a new sexual orthodoxy and it would characterize the beliefs of people who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as the equivalent of racist bigotry. Female athletes would be required to compete with men identifying as women. Students attending bible believing colleges and other schools would not be eligible for federal loans. And there is much more in this disastrous bill which may well become the law of the land early in 2021 if Democrats are elected President, Senate and House.And euthanasia, condemned by the Catholic church. Biden is very much for it.Simply looking at the facts, we can readily see the evident and factual hypocrisy of Joe Biden. How, I wonder, can any such man attend church, profess allegiance to that church and its teaching and moral precepts, walk out of that church and do everything possible to defy the teachings of his Catholic church in the most fundamental ways. HOW? And more so, how can we the people vote for such a hypocrite to become our President and do what he is promised to do. The net effect is not only to eviscerate the teachings of the Catholic church, but all of Christianity. Biden as President would effect every non–Catholic Christian church, the Pastors and congregations, and make the practice of religion, guaranteed by our Constitution's First Amendment virtually impossible. Whether unwittingly or not, Biden then becomes the champion of anti-Catholic sentiment, perhaps somewhat like that prejudice of old and yet seeks to call himself a good practicing Catholic. It seems obvious that Biden is pandering to Catholics in order to secure their votes. I think of this as religious hypocrisy at its height, wrong in every way. What do you think? ONE CRITICAL STANDARD FOR AMY CONEY BARRETT – YET ANOTHER FOR JOE BIDEN. I'll take Barrett, the real deal, any day over Biden the hypocrite. What do you think? Small wonder that the Rev. Robert Morey of Saint Anthony Catholic church in Florence, South Carolina said that he denied Joe Biden Holy Communion in October because of his stance on abortion. If you wish, said this good Priest, to participate in Catholic Communion, then you disavow abortion in every aspect of your life, personal and political, Mr. Biden. That did not happen. But, you can't have it both ways. You can't serve God and mammon. You can't seek the blessings of the Catholic church and then openly and aggressively defy its teachings. Hypocrisy at its zenith. HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME IS AGAINST ME.Biden has promised with Pelosi and Schumer that the Democrats will do away with the Hyde Amendment which has protected American tax payers from being forced by the federal government to pay for abortions. In short, WE THE PEOPLE will be paying for abortions whoever wishes one no matter the circumstances. And Biden and his fellow Democrats rejoice over the fact, perhaps privately for now, that the so called EQUALITY ACT if in fact passed will obviate and do away with the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT (RFRA) which provides some substantial protections for religious practice and decision making in America. A Biden presidential Administration would have severe and serious impact on the Roman Catholic church. And on Evangelicals. And Protestant churches generally. And the Jewish religion. And right thinking, sincere Muslims, and all people of faith. It seems clear that a vote for Biden is a vote against freedom of religion of our beloved First Amendment. I state unequivocally that I do hope and pray that you, a person of faith, will not vote for Joe Biden as President or for any other Democrat championing these beliefs running for any other office. President John Adams, one great founder of our Constitution and our freedoms stated the following:“OUR CONSTITUTION WAS MADE ONLY FOR A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. IT IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY OTHER.”But it seems as though we the people have lost our way. Our morals are in shambles and we seem ready at every turn to compromise RELIGION. We back down, fail in so many ways to resist and seemingly blindly elect people to govern and rule who have no regard for religion or faith. In fact, they seem against it and ready to rid the marketplace, the public square, all of America of that highest freedom which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Please don't let that happen my fellow Americans, please. If that freedom is reduced or eliminated, once lost it will be lost forever. So please vote, and vote right, and for candidates who will champion our Constitution and our beloved First Amendment. And you will vote, will you not? YOU MUST VOTE! 

When we think of nuns, there comes to mind the vision of good ladies in habits, easily identified as special members of the Roman Catholic Church, and of course doing good deeds of mercy and kindness to others, and especially to the poor. Perhaps we also think in stereotypic terms that nuns are passive, always ready to turn the other cheek, even nonconfrontational and certainly not political. Perhaps a nun is best represented by that very special one MOTHER TERESA. What she did in her life achieved worldwide notoriety, well deserved. But by no means all of them fit this stereotype. There came the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, which we know as OBAMACARE which required all medical insurance to cover women's “preventive care.” The anti–religion Barack Hussein Obama and the Obama Administration immediately and progressively defined preventive care as all manner of birth control. That meant that any insurance plan, whether private or governmental was required, forced to offer and pay for birth control no matter any religious ramifications. There were indeed exemptions, such as churches, granted a full exemption. But ironically so called employers like the LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR were not. That organization, to be sure, was indeed religious in nature but the LITTLE SISTERS were required to offer and pay for birth control items in any medical insurance offered. They stood up and fought back. And they took on the government yet a second time.In 2017 and 2018, the Trump Administration expanded the exemption to employers who sincerely objected to paying for contraceptives. Good for you, Mr. Donald John Trump, good for you. But then, as the Wall Street Journal so well states, “in a dreary example of liberal intolerance, Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued to have the Trump exemption declared invalid, illegal and unconstitutional.” Not to be intimidated by the liberal, legal moves of these two states, the Little Sisters of the Poor, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania moved to intervene. The case made its way through the lower courts, including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and it was finally recognized by the Supreme Court as a supreme legal example of constitutional importance, and a Supreme Court recognized and consolidated with other cases for review and decision:         THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR V. PENNSYLVANIAThis case is one excellent example of the conflict which now exists between competing rights of the First Amendment of the Constitution, namely the CLASH between FREEDOM OF RELIGION and the extent of the power and control of the federal government. Can, this case argues, religious organizations not churches, which again are exempt, which have sincerely held religious beliefs that the use of contraceptives and birth control measures are immoral and against their religion and conscience be required to offer such and even pay for these items as medical insurances offered. Can the government? Pennsylvania and New Jersey argue that the Trump Administration exceeded its power when it granted this broad exemption to private employers. The states claim that the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT (RFRA) and Obamacare do not authorize the creation of these exemptions to the birth control mandate. The Little Sisters of the Poor, God bless them, fought back and forcefully reminded the Supreme Court that the RFRA clearly states that if the government wants to “substantially burden” religion against its conscience, which the birth control requirement would clearly do, the government must have a compelling interest in doing such and it must also do so by the least restrictive means. Is it, the nuns ask, governmentally COMPELLING that the government require and be so involved with the enforcement of birth control no matter the unconscionable burden to religious organizations and, is requiring all such organizations to offer and pay for such the least restrictive way the government can enforce this COMPELLING INTEREST as a national requirement. The nuns say no way and so do thousands of other such organizations and entities and so many private business owners as well.By the way, the government tried to avoid the matter, the lawsuit by offering the Little Sisters a fig leaf. That is, an opt–out for them as a compromise. That might indeed solve the problem for the nuns and their organization, but it would leave undecided the much larger issue of governmental interference to religion generally and the constitutional rights of freedom of religion of so many other entities, paving the way for more litigation. Up they stood, these strong defenders of and believers in the constitution and freedom of religion and refused to be bribed. They did then and do now intend to FIGHT THE FIGHT OF FAITH. And all of us who are religious – Christian and otherwise applaud them and stand with them.The states Pennsylvania and New Jersey responded to the Supreme Court that the nuns were unreasonable, guilty of OBSTINACY. Their attorneys immediately responded saying it is not obstinacy on their part but:         CONSTANCY OF BELIEF. Good for them. It is such a pleasure to witness a religious organization standing firm, unintimidated by government and willing to do whatever is required to protect their constitutional rights and especially freedom of religion. All of us religionists, whether Catholic or not, should support this effort and watch with great expectancy the actions and critical decision making of the United States Supreme Court, which will occur this year 2020. Pay attention to this case my fellow Americans, and especially my fellow Christians:         LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR V. PENNSYLVANIA.You know which side to root for!The Supreme Court stated in the landmark case BURWELL V. HOBBY LOBBY that the burden of proof rests with government which must show that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. In so many cases, whichever party has the BURDEN OF PROOF has the more difficult duty to produce such evidence in order to win the case. In the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court held that the government had not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. In short, it lost. In that ruling, and perhaps facetiously, the court suggested that the “feds” could “assume the cost of the insurance as an alternative means to achieve the governmental end which would be a FEDERAL BURDEN of billions of dollars.” Obviously, that went nowhere with the Obama Administration and the governmental agencies supporting his policies. The Hobby Lobby case unfortunately left any number of serious and critical constitutional issues undecided and now, THE LITTLE SISTERS, bless them, and their judicial fortitude will require the Supreme Court to decide the issue once and for all. And that is, the extent to which the government has a compelling interest in requiring “all manner of birth control” for any and all medical insurance plans, including and especially those offered by employers. We should all hope and pray that these stand–up nuns win the case. And of course, enter groups like PLANNED PARENTHOOD. This aggressive and essentially government–funded organization, federal and state, say that all women would be harmed if their employers can object to paying for contraceptives – birth control. But such an argument is really specious indeed. Surely, if a man or a woman engaging in sexual acts wishes to utilize any form of contraception, he or she can personally pay for that protection. Any form of government, federal, state or local should not have the arbitrary power to require anyone or any entity to do so. In the hearts and minds of tens of millions, that is governmental overreach, abuse of authority and power, and most clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.The Wall Street Journal reminds us that our great country America and WE THE PEOPLE have long been a beacon of light and hope for:         RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.Move on, governments, and fight the fight of the CORONAVIRUS and other things medical that really matter and affect all of us equally. We have always accommodated, we American's religion and religious freedom whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, or any other for that matter, whether or not we agree with such others. We understand no matter our beliefs that religious freedom applies to every American citizen, EVERY ONE! Any differences are settled or debated with words and deeds, but not FORCE, especially governmental. We the people accommodate the Amish so that they are exempt from social security. We accommodate pacifists like Quakers and Brethren who will not go to war. Not only are we not intolerant to religion and the free exercise of religion as the constitution guarantees, but we the people encourage real religion in every way we can. When there are those who have SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS that something is wrong, and inconsistent with and compromising of their legitimate faith, those deeply held religious convictions should be honored. THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR do not believe in and are against contraceptives and the use of birth control. They and all like them should be exempt from offering and paying for such in the health plans they offer. That is our belief and that is what the constitution requires in our opinion. WHAT DO YOU THINK?Whether Catholic or not, all of us should applaud the courage, the STAND–UP of THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR. They and their attorneys take on the great states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey who at least in this matter have lost their way. It is really so interesting, so American that ladies of mercy and charity take on the constitutional fight when other organizations have not. Let us who believe in religious freedom support them, and watch anxiously, hopefully and prayerfully that the Supreme Court will do the right thing, make the right decision and authenticate and prioritize freedom of religion and freedom of religious conscience. THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION DEMAND THAT.

19-431 LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR V. PENNSYLVANIA Since 2011, federal courts have repeatedly considered whether forcing religious objectors to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Over and over again, this Court has reviewed these cases on an emergency basis or on the merits. Yet it has never definitively resolved the RFRA dispute. In 2016, an eight-Justice Court in Zubik v. Burwell did not reach the RFRA question and instead remanded for the parties to try to reach a resolution, on the evident assumption that the executive branch possessed the power to provide broader accommodations and/or exemptions. After months of negotiations (and an intervening election), the agencies finally agreed to promulgate new rules providing a broader exemption, seemingly bringing an end to this long-running dispute. Those new rules were challenged, however, by several states, resulting in a nationwide injunction on the theory that RFRA and the Affordable Care Act not only do not require, but do not even allow, the religious exemption rules. That nationwide injunction has stagnated other cases, and it conflicts with the judgments of many courts that have issued final orders affirmatively requiring comparable exemptions under RFRA. The rights of religious objectorsincluding the Little Sisters' right to defend an exemption-remain very much at issue. The questions presented are: Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court? Whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage? 19-454 TRUMP V. PENNSYLVANIA The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 42 U.S.C. 18001 et seq., requires many group health plans and health-insurance issuers that offer group or individual health coverage to provide coverage for preventive services, including women's preventive care, without cost-sharing. See 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a). Guidelines and regulations implementing that requirement promulgated in 2011 by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury mandated that such entities cover contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The mandate exempted churches, and subsequent rulemaking established an accommodation for certain other entities with religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage. In October 2017, the agencies promulgated interim final rules expanding the exemption to a broad range of entities with sincere religious or moral objections to providing contraceptive coverage. In November 2018, after considering comments solicited on the interim rules, the agencies promulgated final rules expanding the exemption. The questions presented are as follows: Whether the agencies had statutory authority under the ACA and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate. Whether the agencies' decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules-which were issued after notice and comment-invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 701 et seq. Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

What does it mean for religious liberty when the government asks houses of worship not to hold services in the middle of a pandemic? Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at the impact of the coronavirus on religious communities and how they are responding (starting at 6:13). Plus, they explore a key law that keeps coming up in these conversations: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (23:03). In the final segment, Amanda and Holly share how the stay-at-home orders are impacting them and how churches are finding new ways to serve in this time. Segment 1: How do government-issued stay-at-home orders impact religious exercise? (Starting at 00:40) Read the Pew Forum survey on why people attend religious services at this link.   Segment 2: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and religious exemptions (starting at 15:40) Read about the pastor who continues to hold church services in Louisiana in this article by Daniel Silliman in Christianity Today: Pentecostal Pastor Won't Stop Church for COVID-19. Learn more about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) at BJConline.org/RFRA. For more on the current Supreme Court case examining RFRA remedies (Tanzin v. Tanvir), visit this link on our website.   Segment 3: Where did we see religion respected in our world? Religious communities react to the coronavirus (30:58) Read the story about a pastor who preached to photos of his congregants in this story by David Wilkinson in Baptist News Global: Don't mess with Texas, COVID-19: this church packed the pews on Sunday. Read the story about the Alabama church that provided space to test people for coronavirus in this article by Sarah Pulliam Bailey in The Washington Post: A megachurch has helped test nearly 1,000 people for coronavirus in two days.

In this episode of the Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty and Don Barker, Don first discusses the Do No Harm Act. The Do No Harm Act clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is intended to protect religious freedom without allowing the infliction of harm on other people. However, how far should religious freedom go? Afterwards, Matt and Don begin taking calls. The first caller is Michael from Maryland. Michael discusses how churches have the wrong description of Lucifer (the devil), and that he knows what the correct description is. Is Lucifer really Satan or is he actually Tom Ellis? Will the real Lucifer please stand up?The next caller is Karen from California. She discusses if sight and feelings are the necessary and sufficient criterion for believing in something or if there are other things necessary. In addition, Matt and Karen get into a heated debate about what it means to be a professional. A clip definitely worth listening to! The following caller is Justin from New Jersey. He claims that he knows the truth about how the universe works through observing purposes and designs. Is his argument worthy of a Nobel Prize? Listen in and find out! The next caller, Tasha from Nevada, claims that Jehovah's Witnesses have the correct doctrine of the Bible due to revelations by them. Maybe all that door-to-door business is not in vain. Or is it? Despite appearing exhausted at this point, Matt and Don continue the calls with Ellen from Michigan. Matt jokes at the start of call by talking about a commenter who said that the microphones were in the wrong place, because they wanted to see the hands of the hosts when they talk. Truthfully, they wanted the microphones moved down so they could see the cleavage from the female hosts. Afterwards, Ellen discusses with Matt how to plan a funeral with religious family members.Following the previous difficult conversation, a new caller, Doug from Ohio, discusses how people make ridiculous claims made about natural disasters being the result of unrelated things such as slavery. Another caller from Ohio, Mike brings up the Do No Harm Act that Don discussed earlier and how important it should be to protect individuals who are victims of religious exemptions such as children who are denied blood transfusions and those who are sent to conversion therapies. Afterwards, Mike discusses how Secular Charities are better than Religious Charities. One of the reasons is because religious charities don't have to reveal how much their income is whereas all other nonprofit charities have to. Scary right?Finally, the we wrap up the calls with Michelle from California. She discusses the difficulties that she went through during her deconversion process such as anxiety, PTSD, and even an attempted suicide attempt. Afterwards, she asks Matt how to deal with leaving religion.

On November 16, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law, a bill backed by nearly unanimous bipartisan support. While RFRA has since then protected the religious liberty of American citizens, it has lost many of its original supporters and is now under attack. So why was RFRA signed into law in the first place? Does the bill truly protect religious pluralism? Daniel Mark, a professor of political science at Villanova University, helps answer these questions. On the second segment, Jared Pincin, a professor of economics at The King's College, sheds light on the concern that a recession is around the corner. Unemployment rates are low, but America's trade war with China and growing national debt are causing many to believe that we're headed toward economic disaster. Is there reason to panic? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

07/15/2019 The Constitutional Threat of The(Sexual Orientation) Equality Act and The Looming Debt Crisis And Coming Debt Foregiveness(Jubilee) John Adams Quotes. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. https://decisionmagazine.com/equality-act-clear-present-danger/ In July 2015, when the Supreme Court announced its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage nationwide, then-Senior Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the ruling posed no threat to constitutional religious freedoms. Kennedy even posited that gay marriages “involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.” His colleague Samuel Alito, joined by justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, begged to differ—sharply. Alito wrote in a dissent that traditionalists would presumably be allowed to “whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes,” but if they uttered their beliefs publicly, they would be labeled “bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools.” Alito’s retort has proven to be prophetic. In the four years since, the list of wedding vendors, business leaders, government leaders, students, campus ministries, judges, military personnel and counselors punished, silenced, sued or fined for Christian convictions concerning marriage and human sexuality has ensued just as Alito predicted, or worse. If that wasn’t enough, LGBTQ activists have relentlessly pushed for normalization of transgenderism, gaining footholds in psychiatry, medicine, news media, entertainment, education, government and social services, while demonizing any who question the new sexual dogma and labeling them haters or bigots. That momentum has carried over into national politics, with prominent progressive politicians embracing the LGBTQ movement’s playbook with unadulterated enthusiasm.   The Equality Act of 2019 is the latest, and arguably the most dangerous, example of this. After the House passed it this spring, Speaker Nancy Pelosi boasted to reporters: “I say tolerant … is a condescending word. This is not about tolerance. This is about respect of the LGBTQ community. This is about taking pride.” Tolerance is no longer enough. What Obergefell didn’t accomplish, the misnamed Equality Act of 2019 attempts to complete with the full crushing force of the federal government behind it.  Former Vice President Joe Biden, thought by some as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president, announced on June 5 that the Equality Act would top his list of priorities. “It will be the first thing I ask to be done,” Biden told an Ohio audience at a dinner sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, the powerful LGBTQ lobbying group.  The Equality Act has come up before, but it prevailed in the House for the first time this spring, by a comfortable 236-173 margin. It is now with the Senate, which is unlikely to pass it. However, one election could change that. If the Equality Act becomes law, it would remake the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act—which aimed to correct systemic and institutional racial discrimination—by establishing new federally protected categories of sexual orientation and gender identity in every sphere of society, including religious institutions. Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that has argued notable cases for businesses that have been in the crosshairs of LGBTQ activists and progressive bureaucrats, explained in an email to Decision: “SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) laws like the Equality Act coerce obedience to one view of marriage, sexual morality, and what it means to be male and female. If it became law, the Equality Act would forbid churches, religious schools and other religious nonprofits from drawing their workforces from among those who are willing to abide by organizational standards on these subjects.” Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of the First Liberty law firm, which helped argue in favor of religious freedom and free speech in the Obergefell case, agrees. “The Equality Act attempts to make sure that in all cases LGBT rights trump religious freedom—in every situation. It makes religious freedom a secondary freedom or right.”  Shackelford says the bill would have broad implications for people of faith; churches; faith-based institutions, including foster and adoption care entities, parents, students, medical workers and public employees; as well as private sector businesses and employees.  “The Equality Act attempts to make sure that in all cases LGBT rights trump religious freedom—in every situation. It makes religious freedom a secondary freedom or right.” —Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty The Equality Act explicitly states that the provisions in the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—which aimed to ensure that “interests in religious freedom are protected”—cannot be used as a defense in cases in which sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination is in question. Additionally, it would override religious freedom restoration laws in the states, as well as application of the federal RFRA as it pertains to conscience protections for federal employees.  “They want to make sure there’s no religious freedom defense,” Shackelford says. “People can’t have a different belief and expect to live in peace. They can’t even make the argument for their beliefs, which is why this is so extreme. Even if you’re a nonprofit religious group, you can get sued for discrimination if you’re not following the new orthodoxy on LGBT rights, gender transition and gender identity, and everything else. And you have to open your showers, your bathrooms, etc., to the opposite sex. “In every scenario, whether you’re a parent, you’re a woman or a girl, you’re a nonprofit religious group, you’re an employer or you’re a medical professional—you name it—in all scenarios, religious freedom is now subsidiary and LGBT and gender-identity rights trump, in all cases, religious freedom and people’s right to conscience.” Even a liberal scholar like Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia law school, a same-sex marriage supporter, has argued against the Equality Act, telling National Review that the bill “is not a good-faith attempt to reconcile competing interests. It is an attempt by one side to grab all the disputed territory and to crush the other side.” Some on the left have claimed religious conservatives are using scare tactics to drum up opposition to the Equality Act. Todd Chasteen, vice president of public policy at Samaritan’s Purse in Boone, North Carolina, says they are either disingenuous or woefully misinformed. “It’s not theory. This is reality. These things are happening,” he says.   The case of fired Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran is a prominent example of where the Equality Act would take the nation, Chasteen says. Cochran, who has since won a lawsuit in federal court and received damages from the City of Atlanta, was fired in early 2015 for writing a Bible study for a men’s group he taught at his church. It briefly covered Biblical sexuality and God’s plan for marriage. “His book disagreed with the sexual orthodoxy of the left, and they went after him,” Chasteen says.  Chasteen also noted the $135,000 fine levied by the state of Oregon on Aaron and Melissa Klein, who operated a bakery that refused to design a cake for a lesbian wedding. The Kleins eventually had to close their storefront shop. In another case, an Ohio judge terminated the parental rights of a couple who had refused to support their daughter’s transgender hormone treatments. And in Anchorage, Alaska, a faith-based shelter is fighting for the right to prevent biological males from sleeping in a room reserved for women who have been victims of sexual assault or physical abuse. “None of this is theory,” Chasteen reiterated. “This is reality.” “The Equality Act is a federal act, which would mean that we would have to walk around hiding what our belief systems are in all 50 states if this thing ends up being approved.” Even some in the liberal feminist movement are concerned that the Equality Act could erode gains made for women over decades by making one’s biological sex meaningless in multiple arenas, and by creating an uneven playing field in women’s athletics. In Connecticut, for example, two biological males who are reportedly taking female hormones finished first and second in the high school girls state indoor 55-meter sprint, with the winner setting a state record. As Rep. Vicki Hartzler (R-Missouri) wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill: “Congress enacted Title IX for a reason—to provide an equal playing field for men and women. But by requiring that all federally funded programs ignore the biological differences between the sexes, the Equality Act dissolves decades of women’s achievements overnight.” “The Equality Act is a federal act, which would mean that we would have to walk around hiding what our belief systems are in all 50 states if this thing ends up being approved.” —Todd Chasteen, vice president of public policy at Samaritan’s Purse Medical entities and workers, from doctors to nurses to technicians, would be required under the Equality Act to provide, perform or participate in sex- or gender-related treatments, even if they claimed a sincerely held religious or professional objection, ADF says. And insurance plans would be forced to cover such treatments with no exemptions.  As already is the case in many educational settings, teachers and professors would be required by federal civil rights law to respect a person’s gender identity by using preferred pronouns, regardless of given names or biological reality. That would even extend to private institutions, where a statement of faith or belief would be subordinate to federal statutes.   Groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and individuals such as Denver software entrepreneur Tim Gill, who has reportedly spent $400 million pushing LGBTQ issues to politicians and influencers, wield enormous power in government, in corporate boardrooms, and in media and academia. “A pastor of a large church in Atlanta told me that many of his members work for significant global companies in that city,” Chasteen says, “and they walk around petrified by the thought that someone might find out what their beliefs are about marriage. Silencing speech and suppressing thought is un-American.” Andrew Walker, professor of Christian ethics and apologetics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, says any legislator with an appreciation for the importance of religious liberty must oppose the Equality Act.  “Or else,” Walker wrote in a post on the Gospel Coalition website, “with the stroke of a pen, pillars of human history—the ideas that marriage is a complementary union of a man and a woman, and that male and female are immutable, biological realities—would be thrown into the dustbin of history.”

It is currently a federal crime, under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, for many Native Americans to possess eagle feathers for religious use. Congress authorized the Department of the Interior (the Department) to permit an exception for eagle feather use for “the religious purposes of Indian tribes” in 1962, yet more than 50 years later the Department’s regulations exclude millions of sincere Native American religious believers. And even Native Americans who are protected (because they are enrolled members of federally recognized tribes) are forced to rely on the “Morton Policy”—an informal memorandum that could be rescinded at any time. Although Native Americans have relied on the Morton Policy for more than 40 years, the Department has never promulgated it as a rule.In 2014, the Fifth Circuit held that the Department had failed to justify its ban on religious feather possession as required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Department is now considering a Petition for Rulemaking, which proposes to 1) broaden the Morton Policy to include all sincere religious believers who use protected feathers in their religious exercise—as both the Constitution and RFRA require; 2) officially promulgate this policy as a formal rule rather than rely on informal guidance, ending decades of legal limbo for those who worship with feathers; and, 3) empower Native American tribes to help combat the illegal commercialization of federally protected feathers. Join Joe Davis as he addresses the proposed rulemaking and its relationship to evolving First Amendment jurisprudence.Featuring:- Joe Davis, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious LibertyVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

It is currently a federal crime, under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, for many Native Americans to possess eagle feathers for religious use. Congress authorized the Department of the Interior (the Department) to permit an exception for eagle feather use for “the religious purposes of Indian tribes” in 1962, yet more than 50 years later the Department’s regulations exclude millions of sincere Native American religious believers. And even Native Americans who are protected (because they are enrolled members of federally recognized tribes) are forced to rely on the “Morton Policy”—an informal memorandum that could be rescinded at any time. Although Native Americans have relied on the Morton Policy for more than 40 years, the Department has never promulgated it as a rule.In 2014, the Fifth Circuit held that the Department had failed to justify its ban on religious feather possession as required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Department is now considering a Petition for Rulemaking, which proposes to 1) broaden the Morton Policy to include all sincere religious believers who use protected feathers in their religious exercise—as both the Constitution and RFRA require; 2) officially promulgate this policy as a formal rule rather than rely on informal guidance, ending decades of legal limbo for those who worship with feathers; and, 3) empower Native American tribes to help combat the illegal commercialization of federally protected feathers. Join Joe Davis as he addresses the proposed rulemaking and its relationship to evolving First Amendment jurisprudence.Featuring:- Joe Davis, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious LibertyVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

It is currently a federal crime, under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, for many Native Americans to possess eagle feathers for religious use. Congress authorized the Department of the Interior (the Department) to permit an exception for eagle feather use for “the religious purposes of Indian tribes” in 1962, yet more than 50 years later the Department’s regulations exclude millions of sincere Native American religious believers. And even Native Americans who are protected (because they are enrolled members of federally recognized tribes) are forced to rely on the “Morton Policy”—an informal memorandum that could be rescinded at any time. Although Native Americans have relied on the Morton Policy for more than 40 years, the Department has never promulgated it as a rule.In 2014, the Fifth Circuit held that the Department had failed to justify its ban on religious feather possession as required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Department is now considering a Petition for Rulemaking, which proposes to 1) broaden the Morton Policy to include all sincere religious believers who use protected feathers in their religious exercise—as both the Constitution and RFRA require; 2) officially promulgate this policy as a formal rule rather than rely on informal guidance, ending decades of legal limbo for those who worship with feathers; and, 3) empower Native American tribes to help combat the illegal commercialization of federally protected feathers. Join Joe Davis as he addresses the proposed rulemaking and its relationship to evolving First Amendment jurisprudence.Featuring:Joe Davis, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

It is currently a federal crime, under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, for many Native Americans to possess eagle feathers for religious use. Congress authorized the Department of the Interior (the Department) to permit an exception for eagle feather use for “the religious purposes of Indian tribes” in 1962, yet more than 50 years later the Department’s regulations exclude millions of sincere Native American religious believers. And even Native Americans who are protected (because they are enrolled members of federally recognized tribes) are forced to rely on the “Morton Policy”—an informal memorandum that could be rescinded at any time. Although Native Americans have relied on the Morton Policy for more than 40 years, the Department has never promulgated it as a rule.In 2014, the Fifth Circuit held that the Department had failed to justify its ban on religious feather possession as required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Department is now considering a Petition for Rulemaking, which proposes to 1) broaden the Morton Policy to include all sincere religious believers who use protected feathers in their religious exercise—as both the Constitution and RFRA require; 2) officially promulgate this policy as a formal rule rather than rely on informal guidance, ending decades of legal limbo for those who worship with feathers; and, 3) empower Native American tribes to help combat the illegal commercialization of federally protected feathers. Join Joe Davis as he addresses the proposed rulemaking and its relationship to evolving First Amendment jurisprudence.Featuring:Joe Davis, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

While the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) often provide protection for a citizen’s religious freedom, it is not always a guarantee. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Two new cadets at the United States Military Academy at West Point do not want to wear the tar bucket. If you’re not familiar with the uniform of West Point cadets, when on parade, cadets wear a plumed shako hat or, as they are commonly called, a “tar bucket.”  The cadets object to wearing the hat because it would force them to remove their turban.  That is a problem chiefly because the cadets are Sikh and the turban is a religious observance for the men.  So, while the United States Army has provided accommodation for Sikh soldiers in the past, this new lawsuit questions whether that accommodation need extend to the parade grounds.  And, it is an interesting question.  Clearly, forcing the cadets to remove their turban would be, in the words of the cadets, “blasphemous.”  Yet, there is something to the tradition and uniformity found in the military dress of our nation’s military academies.  Congress, thankfully, has helped provide guidance in the settling of such matters.  In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress insists that the government identify its compelling interest and restrict the free exercise of religion in the least restrictive manner possible whenever a citizen alleges a substantial burden to his free exercise of religion.  RFRA does not guarantee an outcome in any case. But, it does make the government justify its behavior. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protect religious acts of protests outside of the Supreme Court? Learn how a U.S. District Court decided the case at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Sometimes the substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise comes literally to the steps of the Supreme Court. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently dismissed a lawsuit alleging that preventing anti-war activists from demonstrating outside the Supreme Court violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The activists noted in their complaint that as a “post-denominational Christian” and “Unity Christian,” their religious beliefs compel protests against war.  They insist on living out their spirituality through prayer vigils and peace walks, sometimes on the Supreme Court’s steps.  Interestingly, the court never questioned the sincerity of their beliefs, no matter how odd they seem.  Nevertheless, the court determined that RFRA did not protect their religious acts of protest.  Why? Because the rule restricts “only one of a multitude of means by which Plaintiffs could engage in their religiously motivated activity.”  According to their own words, the steps of the Supreme Court are not the onlyplace in which to exercise their beliefs; it’s just one ofthe places they exercise their beliefs.  So, while the rules might burden their religious exercise, it’s not a substantial burden since there are many avenues left open to their religious exercise.  RFRA provides broad protection to those who seek to exercise their religion, even when they attempt to do so in public.This case reminds us that RFRA correctly balances that right against the legitimate needs of government to govern.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

It has been 25 years since Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) with near unanimous support. Since then it has prevented the government from infringing on the freedom of a wide variety of religious individuals and groups to exercise their religious beliefs. But with the new Congress, there could be legislative efforts to limit the application of RFRA. Join us for a keynote address from Acting Attorney General Whitaker followed by a panel discussion featuring Jewish, Muslim, and Christian perspectives on protecting religious freedom. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On March 23, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Zubik v. Burwell, the lead case in a consolidated series, with the other petitioners including Priests for Life, Southern Nazarene University, Geneva College, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, East Texas Baptist University, and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. -- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) requires that group health plans and health insurance issuers provide coverage for women’s “preventative care,” or face financial penalties. Although the ACA does not define preventative care, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), relying on the Institute of Medicine, determined that the term encompassed, among other things, all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, including drugs and devices that could induce an abortion. Although the government exempted “religious employers” from this mandate, the exemption was narrowly defined and did not extend to petitioners. The government did, however, offer non-profit entities such as petitioners an “accommodation.” -- Under the accommodation, which was modified in the course of litigation, an objecting religious nonprofit entity complies if it provides the government with a notice that includes “the name of the eligible organization,” its “plan name and type,” and the name and contact information for any of the plan’s third-party administrators (TPAs) and health insurance issuers. Upon receiving the notice, the government notifies the objecting entity’s insurance company or TPA, which then must provide payments for the requisite contraceptive products and services. A number of objecting non-profits sought relief in various federal courts, arguing that the accommodation violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The resulting litigation produced a series of fractured opinions and a split in the Courts of Appeals, with non-profit religious organizations prevailing in the Eighth Circuit but losing in a number of others. -- After imposing a brief injunction on enforcement against petitioners while it considered various petitions for certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a number of petitions and consolidated the cases for oral argument on the following question: whether the HHS Mandate and its “accommodation” violate RFRA by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, when the Government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest. On March 29, the Court also issued a detailed order requiring the parties to brief “whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners'’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees.” -- To discuss the case, we have Roger Severino, who is Director, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, The Heritage Foundation.

View full event here: https://www.cato.org/events/will-obamacare-trump-religious-organizations-preview-zubik-v-burwell-eve-oral-argument Two years ago, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that regulations implementing Obamacare's "preventive care" mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) for certain closely held corporations. Religious schools, charities, and the like were instead offered an "accommodation": These employers had to give the government information about their insurers and sign forms allowing their health plan to provide contraceptives. The only justification for this differential treatment was that employees of organizations that aren't houses of worship are less likely to share their employer's faith. In other words, HHS refused to exempt people who work for groups like Little Sisters of the Poor — a group of nuns who vow obedience to the Pope! — because they're less committed to a religious mission. Thus the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether the contraceptive mandate and its "accommodation" violate RFRA by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs when the government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest.

Two years ago, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that regulations implementing Obamacare’s “preventive care” mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) for certain closely held corporations. Employers with religious objections to some of the contraceptives that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) required them to cover had to be exempt from that regulation. They thus joined churches and their “auxiliaries,” which HHS had exempted from the contraceptive mandate after public outrage at the scope of the initial regulation. But what about nonprofits that HHS considered insufficiently religious to merit exemption? Religious schools, charities, and the like were instead offered an “accommodation”: These employers had to give the government information about their insurers and sign forms allowing their health plan to provide contraceptives. The only justification for this differential treatment was that employees of organizations that aren’t houses of worship are less likely to share their employer’s faith. In other words, HHS refused to exempt people who work for groups like Little Sisters of the Poor — a group of nuns who vow obedience to the Pope! — because they’re less committed to a religious mission. Thus the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether the contraceptive mandate and its “accommodation” violate RFRA by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs when the government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest. Please join us for a discussion of all the issues these cases raise, including what to look for at oral argument the following week. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In Episode 011 of the Hoosier United Methodist Podcast Dr. Brad Miller has a fascinating discussion with, an advocate for people in the margins of society, Rev. Brent Wright, pastor of the Broad Ripple United Methodist Church in Indianapolis.  Brent has made his voice known as advocate for people in the LGBT community.  This has taken the form of writing articles in blogs and publications supporting the rights of same gender couples to marry and taking a stand in opposition to the efforts of some Indiana legislators and the Governor to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which he contended would have given license for discrimination against LGBT folks.  Wright talks with Brad about modeling his actions after how Jesus related to people in the margins of society.  In particular Brent speaks to the power of developing personal relationships in relating to the local church and the community on this issue and how to approach sensitive issues in the local church.  Indeed, one of the highlights of the conversation is a story about one man named Roger for whom the church touched deeply through a personal approach.  Brent also speaks about life and ministry in an eclectic community like Broad Ripple and his unique spiritual discipline of flying.  Go to the show notes at www.hoosierunitedmethodist.com for more details and links to Brent Wright’s writing.

NC Family president John Rustin talks with Kellie Fiedorek, litigation staff counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), about the importance of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) laws, and why North Carolina needs a state RFRA to strengthen religious liberty protections for all its citizens.

On this episode of Ramble Redhead, I have a panel of great people: Beth, Carl and Dan to talk about a big issue that was affecting the state of Indiana. The governor of Indiana signed a bill into law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and then the talks of discrimination against the GLBT […]

Pay no attention to the hype. Today’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is a narrow and fully justified application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to closely held, for-profit corporations. Trevor Burrus explains. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

TRANSCRIPT Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary. With the Democratic National Convention (which was more like a once-every-four-year meeting of the Soviet Politburo) blessedly come and gone, we can now look at all things official from the Party of Death. The communist Democrats did the main thing they actually gathered virtually to do — to nominate fake-Catholic Biden as their man. They also tossed in fake African American Kamala Harris just to keep the theme of fake going. She ain't African American. And she knows nothing of the experience of "black America." But Harris isn't the focus today; Biden and his fellow commies are. There is no way any Catholic can vote for this ticket, die unrepentant of it and escape Hell. To lend your support to these enemies of Christ is to cut yourself off from Him (and therefore from eternal salvation). Biden and the Democrats hate religion, for starters. They pay a tiny bit of lip service to it but, in practice, would completely nullify it in the process of overturning every right protected by the Constitution. The 2020 Democratic Party is anti-Christ, which makes their leader, Joe Biden, a fake Catholic waging war against Christ. For example, the 2020 party platform says religious freedom is a "fundamental human right." Sounds good, right? Read on. It's a right that, however, cannot be used "as a cover for discrimination." There you have it. Your religion is fine as long as you don't try to actually practice it. In 1993, sensing communist creep closing in on religion, the United States passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). It has been successful in preventing the government from forcing individuals and groups to violate their consciences with morally objectionable laws and regulations. So an adoption agency run by the Church is free to uphold its religious beliefs, for example, and not give children to homosexual couples for adoption. If a gay couple wants a child, there are plenty of other agencies they can go to. RFRA, because it backs religious convictions, has been high on the target list for the communist Democrats for years. Last year, Kamala Harris introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate to gut RFRA and force religious-minded people to go along with immoral laws and practices — or pay the price. The bill lost because the commies don't have control of the Senate: That's the only reason. The entire communist Democratic Party has adopted an anti-God platform (and specifically an anti-Christian or, more acutely said, anti-Christ platform). Yep. The 2020 Democratic Party is anti-Christ, which makes Joe Biden, their leader, a fake Catholic waging war against Christ. Jesus Christ is the truth. Personally. He said it of Himself: "I am the way, the truth and the life." He's the truth, not some truth. He's not a person who says truth, but is truth itself. When He stood before Joe Biden's spiritual ancestor, Pontius Pilate, He said, "Anyone who hears the truth, hears My voice." When Christ speaks, it is truth speaking — truth in vocal resonance. It's not what He says but that He says anything. Since He is truth, nothing can come from His mouth other than truth. There is nothing in the Communist Party platform other than lies — that which is opposed to truth. What type of Catholic would these monstrous men in miters be capable of producing other than a Biden (an enemy of Christ)? Forcing consciences, mauling and murdering children in the womb, destroying families, eradicating the human spirit, the enslavement of labor, the glorification of unbridled sex, the celebration of perversion — everything this party supports is opposed to the divine (no matter how many homosexualist priests sashay onto center stage to pretend otherwise). Biden had better hope — for the sake of his salvation — that the dementia is deep and has been around for a while. He long ago entered into a pact with the diabolical where he exchanged his soul for political power. That much is obvious. The circumstances of the pact are unimportant. Only the consequences are worth considering. Biden hates Christ because he hates the truth. And what's worse, he pretends otherwise. At least the likes of Soros don't pretend. But then again, Soros and company don't need to deceive people in order to secure their votes. In many ways, Biden is little else than the extension of a failed Catholic Church — a hierarchy that sold its own soul decades ago in exchange for mostly homosexual lust but also power and money. As the expression goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." What type of Catholic would these monstrous men in miters be capable of producing other than a Biden (an enemy of Christ)? They long ago set themselves up as His enemy, and now affairs are simply playing out to their logical conclusion. Biden learned to become an enemy of Christ at the feet of so many bishops and clerics who perfected the practice. Many of those men are now dead, and Biden is close. Maybe, somehow, all those perverted bishops and priests — perverted in a thousand ways — were all saved (as Bp. Barron assures us). After having lied to, deceived, raped, robbed, pillaged tens of millions of souls for their careers, they each suddenly had a deathbed conversion. We can certainly desire that, but there is no reasonable hope of it because a reasonable hope is based on a reason. And just what would that reason be? Christ would want them to be saved, of course. But the reality is many of them would not want to be saved. They would have cut themselves off from salvation — locked in their sin and unable to cooperate with whatever graces they may have received, even on their deathbeds. God does not force Himself on a soul; He does not force souls to go against their conscience. That's what communist Democrats do. You know, the enemies of Christ. The ones who hate him — like their 2020 nominee.