The 3 - October 27, 2019

This week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes developments in a case involving a 7-year-boy whose mother wishes for him to "transition" into a girl, a move opposed by his father.  Also, there is chilling news from China, where a megachurch building was destroyed, with the process beginning while worshippers were still inside.  And, Northern Ireland now has legal abortion and same-sex marriage, as the result of the government's inability to form an assembly.

Judge overrules jury decision in case involving 7-year-old whose mother is pushing gender transition

The jury issued a much-criticized decision in the case, and the judge altered the ruling.  It's the unfortunate and troubling case of a 7-year-old boy whose mother wants him to transition into a girl, against the father's wishes.  According to LifeSiteNews.com, a Texas jury granted custody to the mother, who is dedicated to gender transition and placing him on hormone therapy.  The mother is Dr. Anne Georgulas; the father is Jeffrey Younger - the article relates:

Since kindergarten, Dr. Georgulas has enrolled James in school as a girl under the name “Luna.” She began telling him he’s a girl when he was just three, and testified in court that she began to believe that when he liked a McDonald’s toy meant for girls. James’ pediatrician records also indicate Dr. Georgulas has met with GENECIS, a medical “transition” clinic in Dallas and is considering “hormone suppression” when James is closer to eight or nine years old.

The story states:

Dr. Georgulas wants to continue to “transition” James “into” a girl called “Luna.” Mr. Younger wanted to take a “wait and see” approach rather than start the child on puberty blockers.

The presiding judge, Kim Cooks, has ruled that, according to the article, "the parents will have joint conservatorship over James, which includes making joint medical decisions for the child." It goes on to say:

Judge Kim Cooks of the 255th district also put a gag order on both parents so that they cannot speak to the press about the case and decided that the father is not required to pay attorney fees. The judge’s decision means that the Save James website will have to be shut down.

China church building destruction begins with congregation inside

Imagine attending a worship service and having demolition crews and equipment show up to tear the building down. That's apparently the scenario of a church in China, Fuyang Christian Church, which was described by Faithwire.com; it reports:

According to persecution watchdog, ChinaAid, the church could seat some 3,000 people and was part of the country’s official church network. The organization also noted that the demolition was undertaken as congregants worshipped, and that the action was carried out with no supporting legal documentation.

It is still unclear why the church was flattened, though the pastors, Geng Yimin and Sun Yongyao, were subsequently arrested on suspicion of “gathering a crowd to disturb social order.”

The story reports that "the demolition comes just a week after a church in Henan province was leveled as more than 200 congregants gathered to worship."

Northern Ireland government failure results in legalization of abortion and same-sex marriage

For 158 years, Northern Ireland has had a law against abortion. Same-sex marriage has also been banned there...until this past Tuesday, according to a report on the FoxNews.com website, which states:

The Northern Ireland Assembly had been able to control their abortion and marriage restrictions as a devolved region of the UK, meaning they control certain legislative rights that the British Parliament did not.

However, its government has been suspended for more than 2.5 years amid a dispute between the major Protestant and Catholic parties, leaving Britain's Parliament in Westminster to make some key decisions.

A bill had placed a deadline of October 21 for Northern Ireland to form a government; if not, as Fox reports: "the bill’s abortion and same-sex marriage amendments would take effect."  There was a failed attempt to re-convene the assembly, but there was opposition and the body did not name a new speaker.

In an e-mail, Keith and Kristyn Getty, who are from Northern Ireland, expressed sadness over these changes, saying:

A law will be passed on Tuesday in Northern Ireland that will represent a genocide of human beings that exceeds by far even the horror of the Northern Ireland ‘Troubles’ (civil war).

Until now, Northern Ireland has successfully blocked legislation to legalise abortion, and since the UK Abortion Act in the Seventies, 100,000 lives have been saved in Northern Ireland because of our laws. On Tuesday, all this changes.

The sentiment of the e-mail is summed up in the phrase repeated in it: "Lord have mercy."  The Gettys state:

Please pray for the leaders of Northern Ireland. There are many working hard for life. The ugliness of it all is hard to describe and a fair place to speak nearly non-existent. Please pray for the local church there. For compassion, innovation, courage and boldness in conviction. Please pray for those groups tirelessly advocating for the protection of mothers and their babies.

The 3 - October 20, 2019

On this latest installment of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, there is positive court action that would prevent doctors and others in the health care field from having to participate in action that violates their conscience rights.  Also, pro-life sidewalk counselors received good news from a Federal appeals court regarding their ability to communicate truth to women who are seeking abortions.  And, the U.S. Attorney General made an important speech on the religious foundation of our nation recently at Notre Dame.

Judge rules to protect conscience rights of health care professionals

Doctors, nurses, and others who have devoted themselves to health care should not have to violate their conscience by participating in activities that they find objectionable, and a Federal court judge has placed himself in agreement with that premise in a recent ruling, according to a report on The Christian Post website.  It reports:

U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, vacated a 2016 Obamacare mandate that critics feared could have forced faith-based doctors out of work if they refused to perform gender-transition procedures or abortions on patients referred to them.

As the article relates, O'Connor had ruled against the regulation in 2017 by issuing a "nationwide preliminary injunction." The article states that "O’Connor maintained his opinion that the rule violates the APA but also ruled that the regulation violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act." APA stands for "Administrative Procedures Act."

The article quotes recent Meeting House guest Luke Goodrich of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented plaintiffs in the case:

“It is critically important that doctors are able to continue serving patients in keeping with their consciences and their professional medical judgment, especially when it comes to the personal health choices of families and children,” Goodrich said in a statement. “Doctors cannot do their jobs if government bureaucrats are trying to force them to perform potentially harmful procedures that violate their medical and moral judgment.”

Pro-life sidewalk counselors receive positive ruling

The presence of pro-life sidewalk counselors are there strategically in order to share with abortion-minded women the truth about their unborn child.  Unfortunately, there are those who realize the potential effectiveness of this type of ministry and are opposed to it.  Some lawmakers realize that they can intimidate those brave individuals and restrict their ability to function, and they will certainly attempt to do so.

Such was the case in Pittsburgh, where the Alliance Defending Freedom, according to its website, filed a lawsuit against an ordinance there that passed the City Council in order to protect the so-called "right" to abortion by setting up speech zones at the clincs.  The site states:

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit in 2014 on behalf of pro-life individuals who haven’t been allowed to speak or engage in sidewalk counseling within the zones. Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto has been enforcing the law, which he voted for as a city councilman in 2005.

Under the ordinance, no one may “knowingly congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate in a zone extending 15 feet from any entrance to the hospital or health care facility” that the city designates. Health care facilities broadly and vaguely include any “establishment providing therapeutic, preventative, corrective, healing and health-building treatment services on an out-patient basis by physicians, dentists and other practitioners.”

The website lauds the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which said that, according to ADF, "...this language does not and cannot apply to pro-life sidewalk counselors." The website says:

"In its latest opinion in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, the 3rd Circuit wrote, “the Ordinance, as properly interpreted, does not extend to sidewalk counseling—or any other calm and peaceful one-on-one conversations….”

ADF Legal Counsel Elissa Graves is quoted as saying, “Pittsburgh politicians aren’t at liberty to silence speech they dislike. As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in last year’s NIFLA v. Becerra decision, ‘the people lose when the government is the one deciding which ideas should prevail.’”

Attorney General calls out those who oppose religion

Attorney General William Barr demonstrated his knowledge of American history and his dedication to supporting religious faith in a stirring message delivered at the University of Notre Dame recently.  According to an article at the Washington Times website...

He said the founders, in writing the Constitution, rejected a society with a weak moral character, which would have needed an overbearing coercive government, and instead counted on a people with strong Judeo-Christian beliefs that could govern themselves without a bullying government.

“This is really what was meant by ‘self-government,’” Mr. Barr said. “In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people — a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.”

In one of the strongest statements reported by the Times, Barr said: “The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role of religion,” adding, "What we call ‘values’ today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality, still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.”

Tony Perkins of Family Research Council took notice, writing at the organization's website:

Harkening back to James Madison, John Adams, and others, he reminded people that "By and large, the Founding generation's view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition... [F]ree government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people," Barr explained.

But, modern secularists, he went on, "dismiss this idea... as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy." They've imposed their own ideas of moral relativism on society and the results have been grim. "First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction," Barr warns. Of course, "One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of a religion, including inquisitions and excommunication."

In a Breakpoint commentary, John Stonestreet of the Colson Center stated:

The Attorney General’s speech reminds us that competing visions for America and its future are rooted in completely different worldviews: One leads to freedom, the other leads to tyranny—because it discards the true source of freedom.

This much is clear: We can no longer assume our friends and neighbors “get” religious freedom. We must make the case for religious freedom as a positive good for all, as a necessary ingredient of human flourishing, for true freedom, and for our life as a nation.

And, as Perkins pointed out, Barr said: "Secularists, and their allies among the 'progressives,' have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values..."

The FRC President then wrote, "...immediately, liberals set about proving the attorney general right...," adding:

The Washington Post called it "terrifying." Over at the New York Times, Paul Krugman said it smacked of "religious bigotry." Richard Painter's fury burned through his Twitter feed, insisting Barr's heartfelt and passionate address was "the latest episode of 'The Handmaid's Tail." And the rage went on and on. Of course, the Wall Street Journal's William McGurn points out, "This is what we have come to expect when someone in public life mentions religion in a positive light." Or, it turns out, secular activists in a negative one.

The 3 - October 13, 2019

This week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, highlights the Supreme Court's hearing this week on cases involving the expansion of civil rights law to include protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  Also, LGBTQ rights was the subject of a townhall sponsored by a cable news network, which included some statements which present concern to people of faith who are opposed to singling out LGBTQ individuals for certain rights.  And, a Florida city's ordinance against therapy for those who are struggling with same-sex attraction was struck down by a judge.

U.S. Supreme Court hears important case on expansion of civil rights law to gender identity and sexual orientation

The Alliance Defending Freedom calls the case that was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court last week an attempt by the ACLU to "rewrite federal law."  ADF is involved in one of three cases that have been combined before the high court, for which oral arguments were heard.  The summary of the case, according to the ADF website:

It all started when a male funeral director approached Tom in 2013 and explained that the funeral director would begin dressing and presenting as a woman while interacting with grieving families at work.

This funeral director had worked at Harris Funeral Homes for nearly six years and had agreed to follow the dress code since the time of hire. Tom took time to pray and consider the interests of the funeral director, his other employees, and the families that Harris Funeral Homes serves. Ultimately, Tom decided he could not agree to the funeral director’s plan.

The funeral director then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which launched a lawsuit against Tom and Harris Funeral Homes for sex discrimination – claiming that “sex” includes “gender identity” in federal law.

Another Alliance Defending Freedom article states, "If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Harris Funeral Homes, the court would make it clear that unelected officials cannot redefine the law – only Congress has that power."  A loss at the high court "would have widespread consequences for everyone:"

ADF says, "It could undermine equal opportunities for women...," opening the doors for men claiming to be women "to take women’s athletic awards and scholarships." It would also put in jeopardy "the dignity and privacy of women — forcing organizations to open women’s shelters, locker rooms, and restrooms to men who believe themselves to be women..."  Plus, there are more implications outlined by ADF.

An analysis of the oral arguments from Kate Anderson, Senior Counsel at ADF on The Meeting House can be found here.

LGBTQ extremism on display at town hall for Democrat Presidential candidates

An article on The Federalist website gave a direct summary about the CNN town halls on Thursday night regarding positions on LGBTQ issues. It says:

Nine times last night the same basic half hour played itself out over and over again. As former Vice President Joe Biden pointed out early on, there weren’t many differences exposed, with the possible exception of former Congressman Beto O’Rourke promising to end tax breaks for churches, mosques, and synagogues. Instead, what we saw was a ritualistic exercise meant to make every candidate, and moderator, for that matter, accept incredibly progressive shibboleths regarding LGBT issues.

It called the evening's activities a "purity test" on these issues.  A Daily Caller article gave some examples.

Cory Booker:

“So for me, I cannot allow as a leader that people are going to use religion as a justification for discrimination,” Booker said. “I can respect your religious freedom, but also protect people from discrimination and as I said in an earlier answer.”

Elizabeth Warren decried what she called "hatefulness," saying, "The hatefulness frankly always really shocked me, especially for people of faith because I think the whole foundation is the worth of every single human being..."

About Pete Buttigieg, who is a gay man who is married to another man, who loves to lecture religious people from his faith perspective, the article said:

Buttigieg said Christians who use their religious beliefs against LGBTQ people make “God smaller.”

“It, to me, is an insult not only to us as LGBTQ people, but I think it’s an insult to faith to believe that it could be used to hurt people in that way,” Buttigieg said.

He his so-called same-sex marriage brought him closer to God and said he wished Vice President Mike Pence, a favorite rhetorical target of his, "could understand that."

Another Daily Caller article said:

Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris entered the CNN LGBTQ forum by saying her pronouns are “She, her, and hers,” to which CNN’s Chris Cuomo quipped, “Mine, too.”

It was reported by The Federalist that Cuomo later apologized:

After his performance, moderator Chris Cuomo took to twitter to apologize for joking with Kamala Harris that his pronouns are also Her/She/Hers after Harris used that progressive salutation. After all, you can’t really have a religion, which progressivism has become, which out sin and confession. And this event was very much like a church service in which the sacraments were announced and piously taken as Gospel.

Other moderators were two gay men: Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon.

But, it was Beto O'Rourke who stirred the most ire among Christian leaders.  The article states...

...O’Rourke immediately responded “yes,” he would require religious institutions to lose their tax-exempt status for such an offense.

“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us,” he said.

A Christian Post article quoted Denny Burk of Boyce College, who, according to the article, "In a thread on Twitter Thursday...said O’Rourke’s proposal was a 'draconian assault on the First Amendment' and warned that it could 'bankrupt many churches.'"  The article goes on to say:

“Beto O'Rourke calls for Christian churches to lose their tax-exempt status unless they endorse gay marriage. This draconian assault on the First Amendment is now the MAINSTREAM view within the Democratic Party,” Burk began. “This could bankrupt many churches and religious institutions because it would dissuade contributions. Many churches would lose their property as a result of being unable to pay property taxes —especially in big cities. This is truly draconian and unconstitutional.”

And, then there was a disturbing stunt involving two children.  The Federalist describes the moment:

On two occasions 9-year-old children who transitioned from female to male appeared with their mothers to ask questions of candidates. Having a child who believes they are trans ask questions about how the state and society should deal with the issue of children transition ensures no substantive discussion can be had, because no sane and sensitive person would challenge such a child.

The article had also said, "There was no serious discussion about pending court cases regarding biological male athletes dominating girls and women’s sports. No real discussion of how to handle who really belongs in women’s shelters. No serious debate about how young is too young for a child to transition, either socially or medically."

Court victory regarding Florida city's ban on counseling people struggling with same-sex attraction

One of the emerging issues regarding the LGBTQ agenda has to do with therapy to help people overcome unwanted same-sex attraction.  While there are some who want to mischaracterize such therapy and use terms like, "gay conversion therapy," or "reparative therapy," in an attempt to discredit the practice of helping someone to change his or her orientation, groups like Liberty Counsel are fighting against laws to ban the practice.

Recently, in a challenge to Tampa's ordinance banning therapy that would provide help to those who are desiring freedom from these harmful attractions, according to Liberty Counsel's website:

...federal Judge William F. Jung issued an order granting summary judgment to Liberty Counsel in its suit to invalidate the Tampa ordinance that prohibited licensed counselors from providing voluntary talk therapy to minors seeking help to reduce or eliminate their unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity. Today’s ruling permanently strikes down the ordinance, which also imposed significant monetary fines on counselors who provide this voluntary counseling. Liberty Counsel represents marriage and family therapist Robert Vazzo and his minor clients, as well as the Christian ministry, New Hearts Outreach Tampa Bay.

Notice the words, "voluntary talk therapy."  Nothing insidious here, that would give ammunition to critics of the practice.  Unless one doesn't believe a person can change through the power of Christ.  That is, after all, at the heart of the gospel.  The Bible teaches that a person should seek to overcome temptations and sinful behaviors, not to accommodate them.

The website quotes from the ruling, which states: "There is no grant of authority by the Florida Legislature to municipalities to substantively regulate healthcare treatment and discipline.” It goes on to say: “Nothing is more intimate, more private, and more sensitive, than a growing young man or woman talking to a mental health therapist about sex, gender, preferences, and conflicting feelings. The Ordinance inserts the City’s code enforcers into the middle of this sensitive, intense and private moment. But this moment is already governed by Florida’s very broad rights of privacy, something the Ordinance ignores…"

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, is quoted as saying, "The city of Tampa has no authority to prohibit counselors from helping their clients achieve their goals. Regulating healthcare is above the pay grade of local municipalities. While striking down the ordinance, the court shredded the arguments used to justify these unconstitutional counseling bans. This ruling dooms every municipality in Florida and is the beginning of the end of more than 50 similar local laws around the country."

The 3 - October 6, 2019

This week in The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, there was an amazing expression of Christ's love and forgiveness in a Dallas courtroom, which was lauded by many, but opposed by some, including an atheist organization which took issue with the judge's actions in sharing Scripture.  Also, the University of Iowa and some of its leaders are in trouble for violating the First Amendment rights of a campus student group.  And, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will be placing an abortion case on its agenda.

Beautiful picture of forgiveness in Dallas courtroom

It was the culmination of a tense season in Dallas - a white police officer shoots an African-American man in his apartment; she claimed she was mistaken and thought it was her apartment.  26-year-old Botham Jean was dead, and the former officer, Amber Guyger, was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Following the sentencing, Botham's 18-year-old brother Brandt took the stand.  According to the Family Research Council website, he said: "I know if you go to God and ask him, he will forgive you." He added, "I want the best for you, because I know that's exactly what Botham would want you to do. And the best would be to give your life to Christ." Brandt then asked if he could give Guyger a hug; the presiding judge, Tammy Kemp granted permission, and even, as the article relates, "can be seen wiping away tears in the background." It goes on to say:

In fact, Kemp was so moved by the younger brother's actions that after official proceedings had ended, she stepped off the bench and retrieved her personal Bible from her chambers. Handing the Bible to Guyger, Kemp said, "You haven't done so much that you can't be forgiven." She then read John 3:16, and said, "You haven't done as much as you think you have, and you can be forgiven. You did something bad in one moment in time. What you do now matters."

The FRC piece notes:

Dallas Police Chief U. Reneé Hall spoke for many after the trial when she said, "Botham Jean's brother's request to hug Amber Guyger and Judge Kemp's gift of her Bible to Amber represents a spirit of forgiveness, faith and trust. In this same spirit, we want to move forward in a positive direction with the community."

But not all were happy with this series of events.  In addition to those who felt the sentence for Guyger was too light and those that chose to analyze the occurrence through the lens of identity politics, the atheist organization, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, as FRC reports...

...poured cold water on the judge's display of kindness by filing a formal complaint with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, alleging Judge Kemp "overstepped" her judicial authority by giving Guyer [sic] a Bible. According to the atheist group, by reading the Bible with the newly convicted defendant, Judge Kemp engaged in "inappropriate" and "unconstitutional" behavior.

As the Family Research Council points out: "because of the courageous and gracious response of the Jean family and Judge Kemp, the community in Dallas has begun to heal...In fact, through their faithful testimony, the world was able to see a beautiful display of Christ-centered compassion and forgiveness. Unfortunately, FFRF is trying to drown out this life-giving, positive message."

Judge issues ruling against University of Iowa for actions against Christian student groups

Earlier this year, according to Christianity Today, a Federal judge, Stephanie Rose, ruled that the University of Iowa has violated the First Amendment right of the student group, Business Leaders in Christ, when the school decided that the group could no longer have "registered status" because it would not allow a homosexual to serve in leadership.

Lightning has actually struck twice - the same Federal judge found the university violated the rights of another student group, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, when it took the same action.  The Christianity Today article states:

...federal judge Stephanie M. Rose determined that the university inconsistently applied its Human Rights Policy by exempting campus groups like fraternities, sororities, and some affirming faith-based groups while penalizing certain religious groups—including InterVarsity—that require its leaders to agree to its statement of faith.

And, university administrators will feel it in their wallets - they will have to pay the costs incurred in InterVarsity's defense in a trial that is set to start in January.  The article notes:

The University of Iowa issued a statement Monday saying it had revised its student organization policy to allow organizations to require their leaders “to agree to and support” the organization’s beliefs.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Louisiana abortion case involving admitting privileges for abortionists

The U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments this week in a collection of cases involving the employment of transgender individuals and whether or not issues of "gender" discrimination apply to such individuals.  And, late last week, the high court announced it will be considering a case from Louisiana regarding whether or not state law can require abortion "doctors" to have local hospital admitting privileges.

WORLD Magazine reports:

Opponents of the law say it could result in the closure of one or two of Louisiana’s three abortion facilities. The state argues abortionists haven’t tried hard enough to establish relationships with local hospitals and the law is necessary to protect women. The Supreme Court struck down a similar law in 2016, which was before Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the court.

An earlier WORLD analysis related that a stay in the implementation of the law had been granted back in February, as "Chief Justice John Roberts joined the more liberal judges in halting the law, while Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas voted to allow it."

Samantha Gobba of WORLD wrote:

Benjamin Clapper, director of Louisiana Right to Life, told me the court could align with its 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which overturned a Texas law requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges, or it could allow the Louisiana law to stand. Supporters of the law and others like it say requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges ensures women can get speedy medical care if a complication arises from an abortion. Critics argue it only serves to limit abortion access.

Keep your eyes on Chief Justice Roberts on this one - although he sided with the liberal bloc of justices to put the Louisiana law on hold, according to SCOTUS Blog, he voted with the dissenters in the Texas case; it was then-justice Kennedy who sided with the 4 liberal justices for a 5-3 decision, in which there was an open seat due to the death of Justice Scalia.  If Roberts is consistent with the previous decision, he could side with Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas to uphold the Louisiana law.