It seems to me that Michael Gerson has almost entirely misread the argument that Andrew Walker makes in a recent National Review column. Gerson writes: “Walker is making the following claim: If you think abortion is a matter of life or death, then you must support whoever opposes it most vigorously, even if he or she is an immoral lout.” Walker actually makes no such claim anywhere in his article. Walker is not offering an argument for voting for Trump. He’s offering a defense of religious pro-life voters who plan to vote for Trump. Walker defends them because Trump-opponents like Gerson are often treating all Trump voters as if they…
-
-
CT’s deeply flawed article about tax exemptions for churches
Christianity Today has a jaw-dropping cover-story arguing against tax-exempt status for churches. Paul Matzko of the Cato Institute authors the piece and concludes: It might not be such a bad thing to lose tax-exempt status. We should consider, at the very least, the cost of maintaining this kind of cultural privilege. The true church of God, after all, is not reliant on its special status in the tax code. We can walk by faith and not by government largess. (p. 49) It’s disappointing that this piece appears in a magazine of “evangelical conviction.” It’s a thesis that is way out of touch with rank-and-file evangelical attitudes about tax-exemption. Indeed, the…
-
Presidential candidate promises draconian crackdown on religious liberty
Beto O’Rourke on religious institutions losing tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage: “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone … that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us” #EqualityTownHall pic.twitter.com/0ruxeIao8o — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) October 11, 2019 At CNN’s “Equality Town Hall,” Beto O’Rourke was asked if churches and other religious institutions should lose tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage. Beto says in no uncertain terms that Christian churches should in fact 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…
-
Florist takes her case to the Supreme Court… again
If you aren’t familiar with Barronelle Stutzman’s case, you need to be (watch above). Barronelle is a 74-year old grandmother and florist who was sued by Washington State and by the ACLU after she declined to participate in a gay wedding. She serves gay people in her store. She has even hired gay people to work in her store. But she is a Christian and cannot in good conscience lend her talents to help celebrate a gay wedding. So when a gay man whom she had served for nine years in her store asked her to participate in his gay wedding, she told him that she could not because of…
-
Critical Theory, Social Justice, and Christianity: Are They Compatible?
Neil Shenvi is a scientist with a Ph.D. in theoretical chemistry from Berkley, but in recent years he has become a budding Christian apologist. He is a member of The Summit Church in Durham, North Carolina (where JD Greear is pastor) and has been putting out some really insightful, accessible material critiquing critical theory and social justice. At a conference earlier this year, he delivered a message titled “Critical Theory, Social Justice, and Christianity: Are They Compatible?” Shenvi shows that critical theory (along with its larger social justice project) is an alternative worldview that is incompatible with Christianity. It is really well done, thorough, and devastating to the claims of…
-
Pro-choice semantic games: Don’t fall for them
Thanks to two Virginia politicians and the President’s state of the union address, the country has fixed its attention on the brutality of late-term abortion. Pro-choice advocates are responding as they usually do by trying to distract everyone from the reality of abortion: Pro-choicer: “Nothing to see here, move along.” Casual observer: “But that really seems like a small person being killed in an abortion.” Pro-choicer: “You sound like you’re against women’s healthcare. And also, science.” Casual observer: “But the baby…” Pro-choicer: “Don’t you believe your lying eyes. It’s just a clump of cells… you know, because of science and stuff.” The problem for pro-choicers is that the later the…
-
Democracy Dies in Darkness: Misinformation from both Washington Post and NY Times about the President’s remarks on abortion
President Trump just finished his state of the union address moments ago. The speech was wide-ranging, but I have to say that his remarks about abortion were the most hard-hitting that I have ever heard in a state of the union address. He exposed the Democrats’ extremism on the issue by referencing their support for late-term abortion and (as in the case of the Governor of Virginia) their support for allowing some babies to die after birth. The New York Times already has a “fact-check” posted on this part of the President’s speech, and the “fact-check” is in error. Here it is:
-
Senator Ben Sasse introduces legislation to protect infants who survive abortion
Senator Ben Sasse just delivered an impassioned statement to the United States Senate. In it, he introduced a piece of legislation and appealed to Senators to come to the floor of the Senate to pass an “Abortion Survivors Protection Act.” This is a direct response the vile remarks made by the Governor of Virginia over the last two days. Here is a rush transcript of Senator Sasse’s statement:
-
When President Bush addressed the Southern Baptist Convention
?? On the anniversary of D-Day in 1991, President George H. W. Bush delivered an address to the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Atlanta, Georgia (listen above at 4:47). The speech is fascinating on a number of levels, not least of which is the part where he praises Southern Baptist military chaplains who reported over 1,000 conversions among U.S. service members during Operation Desert Storm (8:26).
-
Why the “Equality Act” is a disaster for religious liberty, and why we may be facing the disaster very soon.
The Associated Press reports on what the Democrats intend to do if they take back the House of Representatives this November. In short, they plan to introduce legislation that would be the biggest assault on religious liberty in our nation’s history. From the report: Just days ahead of a midterm election they hope will deliver them a majority, House Democrats are promising to prioritize anti-discrimination legislation that would for the first time establish widespread equal rights protections for LGBTQ individuals.
