The editors of National Review have penned a recent editorial calling for the legalization of marijuana. They argue that the consequentialist case for legalizing pot is powerful. According to them, marijuana is a benign intoxicant that the state has no business regulating. Individual liberty means that the government needs to get its nose out of prohibiting the use of this drug. According to them, regulating marijuana has led to a failed and expensive war on drugs. Furthermore, laws against marijuana usage only end up making ordinary citizens into criminals. And what’s the use of that?

In his most recent column for The New York Times, Charles Blow argues that the Replublican Party is manipulating the benighted convictions of Christians for political purposes. Blow accuses the GOP of manufacturing a war on Christians in a cynical attempt to keep its base riled up for the next election. In short, Blow says that there are no real threats to religious freedom in this country. It’s all just a figment of our imaginations. It’s a ruse designed by the GOP to ensconce Christians in their most “base convictions” (like belief in the biblical creation account and the Bible’s definition of marriage). If it weren’t for the GOP manipulating…

Last April, Brandon Ambrosino authored one of the most compelling articles that I have read all year: “Being Gay at Jerry Falwell’s University.” Appearing in The Atlantic, the essay is his own story of coming out of the closet while he was an undergraduate at Liberty University. What riveted me about his account is how the Christians at Liberty University responded to the revelation of his sexuality. He had feared that they would want to stone him. But instead, he found out that quite the opposite happened. Even though professors and administrators believed homosexuality to be a sin, they loved him and embraced him with open arms. His expectations of…

This editorial from National Review is wisdom crying out in the streets. It’s just plain old common sense, which for some reason has become increasingly uncommon these days. It takes on two popular tropes from the Left:

The Supreme Court has decided to hear Hobby Lobby’s appeal for protection against Obamacare’s coercive abortion mandate. As I noted yesterday, Obamacare imposes crippling fines on employers who will not purchase insurance plans that cover contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. Hobby Lobby is run by a Christian family, and they have said that paying for chemical abortions violates their most deeply held beliefs. And so the owners have made an appeal to the courts for protection from Obamacare’s coercive violation of their religious liberty.

Joe Carter has a fantastic essay answering frequently asked questions about Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Christians, it is really important that you understand what this debate is about because this will affect you one way or the other. Obamacare imposes one of the severest restrictions on religious liberty that we’ve ever seen in this country. In many ways, it’s draconian and quite unprecedented. So when you get a chance, go read Carter’s FAQ’s. I’ll list the questions below. You’ll have to go the essay for the answers.

The news just came out today that the Supreme Court has decided to hear Hobby Lobby’s case against Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. I have written extensively on this site about the battle that Hobby Lobby has been engaged in for over a year now. In short, Hobby Lobby has been asking for relief from Obamacare’s requirement that they violate their religious beliefs.  Obamacare’s mandate is one of the most egregious violation of religious liberty that I have ever seen. As a result of this law, the United States Government forces Christian business owners to pay for abortion inducing drugs in their employees’ insurance plans. It doesn’t matter that the law violates…

You may have heard the news over the weekend that a federal judge has ruled that an IRS exemption giving clergy tax-free housing allowances is unconstitutional. In the wake of this ruling, a lot of people have been asking why this exemption exists in the first place. Joe Carter has the best analysis that I’ve seen on the history and the rationale for the ministerial housing allowance. He notes that clergy are not the only ones who have received such exemptions.