The 3 - July 28, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes the response of Christians to a disturbing expression during the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games in France.  Plus, there is a variety of court actions, including a major settlement announcement between the U.S. Navy and current and former service members who had requested a religious accommodation from the COVID-19 shot mandate. Plus, another court has put new government regulations on Title IX on hold while legal action proceeds.

Christians vocal in opposition to display of drag queens in depiction of DaVinci's "Last Supper"

The Opening Ceremonies of the 2024 Summer Olympic Games in Paris featured the athletes in a boat parade on the Seine River, along with a variety of expressions that unfortunately, some regard as "entertainment." As 1819 News put it:

The opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris, France, started with an immediate controversy after a racy drag queen dance routine and a drag depiction of the Last Supper.

Several events in the opening ceremony drew attention to the Olympics' opening night. Several drag queens carried the Olympic torch, followed by others participating in a flamboyant dance routine. However, the display that drew the most outrage across social media was a tableau of Jesus's Last Supper.

The description went on: "The depiction was a cheap parody of the universally recognized painting by the famed Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci..." It featured a "...tattooed person donning a bedazzled headdress designed to look like a halo."  Also, "Later on, a half-naked man wearing blue paint was lowered onto the table, apparently depicting the Greek god Dionysus."

Alabama U.S. Senator Katie Britt was quick to condemn the display, writing on X: "This was an intentional choice to mock Christianity and Christians," adding, "It's disgraceful. And it's the same kind of bizarre craziness that's being pushed on children and teenagers across America. We need to turn our eyes back to God and restore common sense."

Crosswalk.com ran a story featuring reaction from high-profile Christians, including Jimmy Dykes of ESPN, who wrote on X: "God will not be mocked..."

The article said:

Skillet frontman John Cooper, on Instagram, said the ceremony “mocked Christianity.”

“The 2024 Olympics are mocking the Lord Jesus,” wrote pastor Ted Traylor of Olive Baptist Church in Florida.

This was on X, as well. 

More response from Crosswalk.com:

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio also cited Scripture, writing, “‘In the last time there will be scoffers who will live according to their own godless desires.’ Jude 1:18.”

“Imagine the outcry if the Olympic Games mocked Muhammad the way it is mocking our Lord,” wrote Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action. “My heart is sad for the mindless hatred that one must have to do this.”

“And now they are openly mocking Christians at the 2024 Olympics opening ceremony,” wrote Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom. “There are billions of Christians across the world -- Christians who will compete at the Olympics. This mockery is repugnant.”

That was written on her X feed. 

And, this lack of judgment on behalf of Olympic organizers has resulted in the company C Spire announcing this on X:

We were shocked by the mockery of the Last Supper during the opening ceremonies of the Paris Olympics. C Spire will be pulling our advertising from the Olympics.

Meanwhile, the Olympics spoke out, but an apology seemed to be half-hearted - or less. BBC.com stated:

The ceremony's artistic director, Thomas Jolly, said there was no intention to "mock or denigrate anyone" and explained the scene in question was designed to reference pagan gods.

"Clearly there was never an intention to show disrespect to any religious group," Paris 2024 spokeswoman Anne Descamps told reporters on Sunday.

"On the contrary, I think Thomas Jolly did try to intend to celebrate community tolerance. We believe this ambition was achieved. If people have taken any offence, we of course are really sorry."

Navy SEALS, Special Ops, other members settle with Navy after being rebuffed in COVID vaccine religious accommodation requests

A host of members of the U.S. Navy, including Navy SEALS, Special Operators, and other members of that branch of the military, who had requested religious accommodations exempting them from the military's mandate to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, have reached a settlement in a lawsuit.

First Liberty, which teamed with another firm to represent these service members, said on its website: "Navy service members who refused the COVID vaccine for religious reasons will now have an opportunity to have their records corrected and their careers protected."

The Navy has agreed that the next three promotion boards are mandated not to consider "any adverse information related solely to COVID-19 vaccine refusal in cases in which a religious accommodation was requested..." The website also notes:

Servicemembers who elected to leave service after being mistreated by the Navy will also get their records corrected. The Navy also agreed to post a statement affirming the Navy’s respect for religious service members, provide more training for commanders who review religious accommodation requests, revise a policy related to accommodation requests that was changed during the mandate, and pay $1.5 million in attorneys’ fees.

The Navy will “re-review the personnel records of all Class Members to ensure that the U.S. Navy has permanently removed records indicating administrative separation processing or proceedings, formal counseling, and non-judicial punishment actions taken against the Class Member solely on the basis of non-compliance with the COVID-19 Mandate and adverse information related to non-compliance with the COVID-19 Mandate.”

Victories continue in challenges to administration's Title IX policies

Title IX is described on the Alliance Defending Freedom website as "a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for students in education and athletics."  This is a 50-plus-year old law that prevents discrimination on the basis of sex, but you have people in power that believe that word, "sex," should be redefined to include sexual orientation and gender identity. 

The includes the U.S. Department of Education, which has announced changes to the definition, drawing multiple lawsuits.  Alliance Defending Freedom, so far, has filed five legal challenges, and has received positive rulings so far, including one within the past few days; its website notes that, "A federal district court in Missouri ruled Wednesday to immediately halt the Biden-Harris administration’s illegal rewrite of Title IX while the lawsuit State of Arkansas v. U.S. Department of Education moves forward." The website adds:

...Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Amelia Ford, a high school athlete from Arkansas, joined the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota in a federal lawsuit filed in May against the administration for its attempt to redefine “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity.”

The article notes that, "Out of five lawsuits in which ADF is involved, this is the fifth injunction halting the administration’s unlawful effort to change Title IX..." ADF Legal Counsel Rachel Rouleau stated: “Girls should know that their safety and privacy are of utmost concern for government officials, and the court’s decision brings them one step closer to that reality,” adding, "The administration continues to ignore biological reality, science, and commonsense, and women are suffering as a result. The court rightly decided to enjoin the administration’s unlawful rule, which will protect fairness, safety, privacy, and free speech for students, teachers, and female athletes.”

The 3 - July 21, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes information on a major fire at a large Dallas church, which destroyed the church's former main sanctuary. Also, another major manufacturer has decided to back off offensive, progressive policies. Plus, California's governor has signed a bill into law forcing school districts to keep information about students' gender and sexuality secret from parents. 

Historic sanctuary at Dallas church destroyed by fire

The evening rush hour in Dallas this Friday was marred by a massive fire that occurred in the "historic sanctuary" at First Baptist Church of Dallas, which is pastored by Faith Radio programmer Robert Jeffress, heard on Pathway to Victory weekdays at 12:30pm.

An article at The Christian Post website noted:

"We continue to praise God for His hand of protection on our church," First Baptist Dallas stated in a Facebook post Friday night.

"We are grateful that no one was injured today and are thankful for the first responders who helped contain the fire to our Historic Sanctuary. They continue working but the primary fire has been extinguished. One way or another, we intend to meet for church this Sunday."

Pastor Jeffress announced on X that the church would meet on Sunday at the Dallas Convention Center in one service.  Fox 4 television reported that Jeffress announced that the sanctuary would be rebuilt.  The station's website quoted that pastor as saying, "We're going to recreate it as a standing symbol of the truth. The unchangableness, the endurance of the word of God. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God shall stand forever..."

He went on to say, "We can not allow Satan to have the last word...If we allow that thing to remain in ruins, it will look to the whole world like we have been defeated by the evil one, so we are going to rebuild, we're going to recreate."

The Christian Post article stated, "According to Dallas Fire-Rescue, the church's secondary chapel was impacted by the fire and suffered a partial collapse...," adding, "The red brick building, known as the church's old sanctuary, was built in 1890. It was the church's home for a long time before it moved to its new worship center about 12 years ago."

The article also said:

In an interview with Fox 4, Jeffress said that the sanctuary was the site of many personal events, including his baptism when he was 6 and ordination for the ministry at 21. The church had just concluded vacation Bible school with over 2,000 kids at the sanctuary.

"It holds a lot of memories," Jeffress said. "We thank God nobody was hurt. … I'm grateful that the church is not brick and mortar, its [sic] people. The people of God will endure. First Baptist Dallas will endure. We thank so many of our friends around the country who are praying for us right now."

Oh, Deere!  Lawn manufacturing company backs off on "woke" support

Another major manufacturing company has announced its intent to reverse policies that are associated with identity politics and favoritism.  WORLD Magazine reports that:

John Deere will no longer support parades or other events focused on what it characterized as social or cultural awareness, a likely reference to gay pride parades. Instead, business resources will be focused exclusively on professional development, recruitment, and retention, the company said. Company training materials will also be audited to ensure they include no social messaging, the statement added. John Deere’s announcement came weeks after farming competitor Tractor Supply made a similar announcement.

The company had announced its commitment to DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, in a report in 2022, according to the article.

As The Tennessee Star reported two weeks ago:

Robby Starbuck shared an update into his work exposing John Deere, the American manufacturing company of agricultural machinery and other heavy equipment, for its woke policies, saying how “hundreds” of upset employees have come forward about the drastic changes under the company’s new leadership.

In a radio interview with Michael Patrick Leahy cited in the article, Starbuck, a Christian commentator and filmmaker, said the company had become a "trojan horse for leftism." 

The article also notes, "Starbuck, who recently exposed Tractor Supply Company for its woke policies that forced that company to reverse course amid backlash from consumers, said he’s had corporate sources at John Deere tell him that the company allows transgender individuals to use opposite sex bathrooms."

New California law mandates that schools keep sexual information about students secret from parents

School district after school district in California had passed policies that would force school administrators and teachers to inform parents about information relative to matters of so-called "gender identity" that they had received about students.  Now, a new statewide law will void those local policies.

It's called AB1955, and according to the California Policy Center...

... AB 1955 was pushed through the legislature as a “gut and amend” bill — outside of the normal legislative calendar — to invalidate the popular parental notification policies enacted by local school boards across the state. The policies require school administrators to inform parents if their child changes their name or gender on official school records.

The Center's website goes on to say that the bill, recently signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, "...instructs school officials to lie to parents if their child changes their gender, name or pronouns at school. The governor’s action is a betrayal of the thousands of California parents and parent advocates who have spoken out against AB 1955 during the rushed committee hearings over the last several weeks." The article quotes from Vice President of Education Policy and Government Affairs at California Policy Center, Lance Christensen, who said “Public schools are meant to support – not subvert – parents in their efforts to educate their children.”  The Center's site also says:

Christensen warned that Newsom’s new “lie to parents” law violates federal law that guarantees parents’ right to access their children’s school records. He also advised districts against creating two sets of files for a student to keep parents in the dark.

The 3 - July 14, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance to the Christian community, highlights another court decision regarding the redefinition of Title IX language to include sexual orientation and gender identity.  Also, the library board in a key location regarding attempts to relocate objectionable books out of the children's section has established new policies. And, pro-lifers have been likened to terrorists in a military training presentation.

Title IX revisions continue to draw court action

Last Thursday, a federal district court ruled, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom's website "to immediately halt the Biden administration’s illegal rewrite of Title IX while the lawsuit, Carroll Independent School District v. United States Department of Education, moves forward."

The website notes: 

On April 19, the administration announced it would redefine “sex” in Title IX rules to include “gender identity,” requiring schools to ignore the biological distinction between male and female in favor of “an individual’s sense of their [sic] gender.”

The Carroll district approved a resolution against the change, and it filed a federal lawsuit. ADF Legal Counsel Mathew Hoffmann, stated: “The Biden administration’s radical redefinition of ‘sex’ in Title IX upends our education system and ignores biological reality, science, and common sense. This dangerous and unnecessary rule change will have devastating consequences for students, teachers, administrators, and families. This court has joined other courts around the country in questioning the legality of the Biden administration’s attempt to undo the privacy, safety, and equal opportunities Title IX provides.”

ADF, as it notes, has already successful acquired four injunctions against the new rule and has already filed five lawsuits.

Alabama library sets new policy on protecting children from inappropriate books

In locations across the state of Alabama, local libraries are attempting to respond to parents' concerns about inappropriate material that is being made available to young children, including material of sexual nature.

1819 News reports that after new members of the Prattville-Autauga Library Board of Trustees were in place, that governing body "passed a series of policy changes related to the procurement and display of books that contain 'obscenity, sexual conduct, sexual intercourse, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender discordance.' It also mandated age-specific library cards to ensure minors could not check out specific material."  This resulted in a federal lawsuit being filed against the board

The 1819 News article notes that recently...

...the board amended its rules, mostly conforming with the recently passed regulations from the Alabama Public Library System (APLS), which is required for libraries to continue receiving state funding. The APLS rules give specific guidelines of definitions for libraries to use when reviewing, relocating or removing books deemed "obscene" or "sexually explicit."

The Alabama Reflector reports:

The code change requires libraries to develop policies to determine the materials appropriate for the collection or risk losing their public funding. They must have a policy in place for placing displays that highlight materials targeted at children. Libraries also must have guidelines to ensure that the children’s section does not have obscene or sexually explicit materials and that those materials cannot be purchased for patrons less than 18 years old.

Groups such as Read Freely Alabama and the Alabama Library Association have opposed the board’s resolution and the administrative code changes adopted by APLS, believing they violate free speech rights and discriminate against LGBTQ+ groups.

PEN America has been one of the leading national organizations that have been attempting to label parents who desire to protect the young hearts and minds of their children as "book-banners," even though the Prattville parents have stated their intent to relocate objectionable books, not remove them. The Freedom to Read program director for PEN America, Kasey Meehan, says, "The library is for everyone, but this policy appears to pave the way for a more narrow public sphere in which LGBTQ+ viewpoints are left out.”  Since LGBTQ+ is a label centered around sexuality - and from a Biblical viewpoint, deviant behavior, it is very easy to see why these so called "viewpoints" should not be included. 

Pro-lifers = terrorists according to U.S. Army presentation

According to The Federalist, a slide from a presentation at Fort Liberty (formerly Fort Bragg) refers to certain pro-life organizations as domestic terrorists, and dozens of members of Congress are wanting answers.

The article at the Federalist website notes that "the probe seeks to uncover information about an anti-terrorism briefing slide recently used by Fort Liberty (formerly known as Fort Bragg) that classified pro-life groups such as National Right to Life and Operation Rescue as threats to the American homeland."

A letter sent to Army Secretary Christine Wormuth reportedly stated, “The American public expects the Department of Defense and its personnel to defend the homeland from actual terrorists, not Americans who seek protections for children in the womb..."  The lawmakers who signed on to the letter...

...demanded Wormuth provide more details on the aforementioned slides and individuals responsible for vetting such materials. They additionally requested the Army secretary explain what specific actions the branch is taking “to investigate the distribution of training materials depicting Pro-Life Americans as terrorists” and what “statutes or Army regulations were potentially violated and what action is the Army taking with regard to any offending employee.”

The article also reports that...

Fort Liberty’s public affairs office confirmed the slide’s authenticity to The Federalist on Thursday, claiming they were “not vetted by the appropriate approval authorities” and “will no longer be used” in future trainings. The office did not, however, respond to The Federalist’s follow-up inquiry on whether the “local garrison employee” responsible for creating the slides has been or will be punished or fired for their conduct.

The 3 - July 7, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes news from the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a ruling late in its term that overturned lower court action regarding government pressure on tech companies. Also, the Court has agreed to hear a case involving dangerous gender-altering surgeries and treatments for minors.  Plus, a religious charter school effort has been halted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court allows government pressure on tech companies

For years, it has been a concern among Christians that social media companies are censoring information because it is not consistent with the messages that the platforms want to promote. There have been allegations that government actor shave been pressuring platforms to censor certain types of content. 

The Washington Stand reported on a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which...

...ruled that two states and five social media users did not have legal standing to sue multiple federal government agencies for flagging messages and whole accounts for suppression or deletion for spreading alleged “misinformation” about the novel coronavirus or questioning recent elections. Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s liberal bloc in the 6-3 opinion in Missouri v. Murthy, which remands the case to lower courts for further action.

The article goes on to say:

The federal government engaged in “a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign,” according to the original U.S. District Court’s ruling, focused primarily on Twitter (now X) and Facebook (now known as Meta Platforms).

But, the high court did not deal with, as the Daily Signal put it, "the question of whether the government may pressure social media companies to suppress speech in a way that would be illegal for the government to do itself." That article continues:

“We begin—and end—with standing,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion for Murthy v. Missouri. “At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.”

But, the attorney general of Missouri, Andrew Bailey, stresses there is more to be done regarding this case; the Daily Signal article quotes him:

“My office filed suit against dozens of officials in the federal government to stop the biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation’s history. The record is clear: the deep state pressured and coerced social media companies to take down truthful speech simply because it was conservative. Today’s ruling does not dispute that..."

High court to take up "gender-change" surgeries and treatments

Harmful procedures that are intended to help young people change their "gender" have been increasingly exposed, and there have been court cases involving the issue, and according to The Daily Citizen...

...the Supreme Court announced it will take up an important case next term. The court will decide whether it is constitutional for states to protect children from harmful and damaging transgender medical interventions – like puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries.

The article goes on to say:

The case stems from Tennessee’s Help Not Harm law (SB 1) which restricts physicians from providing puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries to minors. The law is entitled the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity Act.

The legislation became effective last July, and a lawsuit challenging the Tennessee law and a law in Kentucky was filed, with the U.S. Department of Justice joining the plaintiffs.  A federal district judge put the law on hold, but that judge was overruled by a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit, which later issued a ruling that the law was, in fact, constitutional.

The DOJ asked the Supreme Court to consider the case. Zachary Mettler, who wrote the Daily Citizen article, writes:

It’s likely that part of the reason the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case is because three federal courts have ruled in various ways on the Equal Protection question, thus creating a “circuit split” among the nation’s federal appellate courts.

While the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have ruled that “transgender status” is not a protected classification under the U.S. Constitution, the Eighth Circuit held that it is.

First-ever religious charter school in U.S. cannot be established, according to OK high court

A proposal by a religious group to begin a charter school in Oklahoma has been halted by a ruling of the state's Supreme Court. The Christian Post reported that:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled against publicly funding the first-ever religious charter school in the United States, concluding that the measure would be unconstitutional.

The state’s highest court ruled 7-1 Tuesday in the case of Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board that it was unlawful to publicly fund St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.

“The framers' intent is clear: the state is prohibited from using public money for the ‘use, benefit or support of a sect or system of religion,’” stated the high court opinion. “The St. Isidore Contract violates the plain terms of Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.”

The article says that "Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who brought the case against the board over approving the creation of the religious charter school, called the state Supreme Court decision 'a tremendous victory for religious liberty.'” However, Governor Kevin Stitt was disappointed in the ruling, stating, “I’m concerned we’ve sent a troubling message that religious groups are second-class participants in our education system..." He said he was "hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case and grant St. Isidore the right to establish their school."

The lone justice who voted against the decision, Dana Kuehn, warned "Excluding private entities from contracting for functions, based solely on religious affiliation, would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."