Standing for Freedom Center - Spring 2021

G E T Y O U R DE G RE E

ON YOUR TERMS

Whether you’re attending college for the first time or returning for a postgraduate degree, a Liberty University education will meet you where it’s most convenient.

P

Study residentially or online and experience the Liberty difference for yourself!

700+ degree programs, from the A.A. to Ph.D.

Flexible education options for every season of life

Award-winning 7,000-acre campus

Frozen tuition rates through the 2021-22 school year

1

Visit Liberty.edu/Explore

to learn more about the opportunities waiting for you at Liberty!

to court, winning several small ASTORS’ responses to victories while keeping his church COVID restrictions will set open and a precedent for w o r s h i p generations uninterrupted to come. in Los Angeles Whether this C o u n t y, influence is to California. have a positive impact depends But not all entirely on pastors have whether or experienced the not pastors Executive Director, Standing for Freedom Center • @rhelfenbein same triumph. show courage and resolve during a time Canadian Pastor James Coates of of fear and compromise.

Grace Life Church in Edmonton, Alberta, was arrested and held During this strange season, in jail for 35 days for holding pastors have mostly made indoor church services against headlines when they decided Canada’s COVID restrictions. He to push back against COVID will have to further defend his lockdowns and government actions during a criminal trial overreach. Pastor John MacArthur pushed back and took the matter

2

liberty, Coates was establishing his own for religious courage.

In Daniel 6 we are reminded of a familiar story where Daniel defied King Darius’ order to prohibit prayer for 30 days. We know the story well because of Daniel’s faithfulness and deliverance from the lion’s den, but few recount that Darius’ edict did not violate any technical requirement in the Torah.

scheduled for early May. Canada’s alarming new religious test is not too far distant from California’s and soon may be experienced throughout the United States.

Coates displayed tremendous courage and resolve as a husband, father, and pastor of his church when many other pastors, including those in the U.S., would have found convenient ways to acquiesce to government demands.

Nothing in Mosaic law required Daniel to pray publicly three times a day. Daniel could have simply laid aside his personal religious practices in order to please Darius and prove himself a good, loyal, and compliant subject in the kingdom of Babylon.

Coates was never concerned about virtue signaling — only obedience to Christ.

During a court-appointed hearing, Coates told a judge:

But this would not have been faithfulness or courage on display. We know how the story ends. Daniel’s resolve is tested and his faith is rewarded.

“I realized that’s the way society is going to perceive what’s happening here. (But) I’m simply here in obedience to Jesus Christ, and it’s my obedience to Christ that has put me at odds with the law.”

Far from being a publicity stunt or a ploy for popularity, while Canada was establishing a new precedent for religious

These stories of biblical faithfulness amidst extreme opposition will become increasingly more relevant and

3

much closer to home in the coming years. Distant foreign mission fields will no longer be the remote testing grounds for obedience in the midst of persecution.

like the Equality Act, or the radical social justice movement, government overreach that will harm religious liberty and individual freedom is all but certain.

James Coates’ story is a reminder to us all that our ministry belongs to God and should never be relinquished out of the fear or praise of man. Remember who called us, equips us, and carries us through.

God is faithful.

This moment will require our absolute best and will inevitably produce a religious test for the ages. The Church must remain faithful, but it will require faithful pastors who believe that Christ, not Caesar, is supreme. Faithful pastors are the heroes this generation desperately needs.

The great test of this generation is twofold.

We must proclaim Gospel truth against public lies while maintaining Gospel boldness against public fear. It will become increasingly more difficult over the next decade.

Whether by a Chinese virus, legislative measures

mike pompeo

THE

they see fit.

Alexander framers of the Hamilton Constitution wrote, “The recognized sacred rights that foremost of mankind a m o n g are written A m e r i c a ’s as with a founding sunbeam by p r i n c i p l e s Mike Pompeo served as Secretary of State the hand of were property under President Trump and is currently the divinity a distinguished fellow at Hudson rights and Institute, where he focuses on promoting itself and U.S. national security, technological religious can never leadership, and global engagement. liberty. The @mikepompeo be erased reason for or obscured this was simple — no person by mortal power.” can enjoy the pursuit of Yet throughout the current happiness without being able pandemic, state and local to retain the fruits of their governments have treated honest hard work, and no religion as dispensable, society can retain a virtuous abridging the free exercise and worthy character if its of religion with careless people cannot worship as disregard for its necessity.

5

In the early days of the pandemic, California, Maryland, Virginia, and other states issued statewide prohibitions on religious gatherings, deeming them “non-essential,” while liquor stores and abortion clinics were labeled “essential” and remained open.

can ever be true to any faith that believes in the dignity of all human life if they do not act out of concern for those whose dignity is assailed because of their faith. Sadly, our religious freedoms are being eroded here at home.

Our preservation of religious freedom has crucial There is no right more implications for our foreign fundamental to a free policy, because whether society than the free practice we are committed to our of religion. Behind walls founding principles at home of prisons and persecuted affects our ability to engage before our very eyes in places with and lead our allies like China, and partners Iran, Cuba, and around the “NO SOCIETY North Korea world — our CAN RETAIN are tens of ability to be A VIRTUOUS thousands of that “shining AND WORTHY people whose city on a hill.”

CHARACTER IF ITS only crime is to PEOPLE CANNOT worship God in As Secretary, WORSHIP AS their own way.

I formed the THEY SEE FIT.” No country that Commission denies religious on Unalienable freedom can ever rightly Rights to examine just this claim to be good in some connection. I asked a diverse other way. And no person set of scholars who agreed

6

to serve on the Commission, Unfortunately, today there led by Mary Ann Glendon, are numerous authoritarian to furnish advice on human governments that violate rights policy grounded in their people’s rights to both our nation’s founding religious liberty. In China, principles as well as the under the rule of the Chinese 1948 Universal Declaration Communist Party, we see a of Human Rights. The modern-day example of a Commission’s final report government that cares little reminded for the inherent Americans of freedoms of “NO COUNTRY THAT what is best in its people and DENIES RELIGIOUS our country’s dismisses their FREEDOM CAN EVER traditions, RIGHTLY CLAIM TO unique dignity.

BE GOOD IN SOME while also Thin claims OTHER WAY.” inviting other of religious peoples and extremism have nations to draw on their been invoked by the CCP own heritages in order to to justify the oppression renew a shared dedication to of religious and ethnic human rights. Just months minorities among their own after the Commission’s people. The most egregious report was published, I example is the ongoing, traveled to Indonesia and shocking, and horrifying met with Nahdlatul Ulama, treatment of the Uighur the largest independent population in Xinjiang Muslim organization in that has included, among the world, to discuss with other atrocities, slave labor them the common ground and forced sterilization. of the report’s findings.

During my tenure as Secretary of State, the State

7

Department designated CCP activity in Xinjiang as genocide. It is a good thing that the current administration has confirmed this important designation. What we see in Xinjiang today echoes the tyranny and persecution the CCP inflicts on the province of Tibet and what we also have seen from them in Hong Kong.

Advance Religious Freedom for three straight years. These were the largest human rights events ever held at the State Department. The Ministerial brought together leaders from every corner of the globe to discuss the issues threatening religious freedom and to find solutions together. It proved that religious liberty matters to so many around the world and that it is an issue where America can and must lead.

Christians throughout China continue to suffer under the CCP’s rule as well.

Congregations that are not sanctioned and monitored by the CCP are outlawed and any scripture not approved by the party is deemed illegal.

China’s example should clarify for all that a society that lacks regard for religious liberty will soon see its political liberties disappear.

To address the assault on religious freedom both in China and around the world, I convened the Ministerial to

President Reagan once said, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape.

This is the last stand on earth.” I saw that as your Secretary of State around the globe. I am confident that the American star will shine across the heavens so long as we keep a proper understanding of our Godgiven rights at the center of our unending quest to secure freedom for our own people and all of mankind.

8

God Never Called Us to be PopulbeaFarith,ful He Called Us to

Jonathan Falwell is senior pastor at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. • @jonathanfalwell

• • • • • • JONATHAN FALWELL

P

OLITICS are important in scripture, harmoniously because politics are a tangible engaged in our giftings, and means by which we minister to wholly obedient to God. the world. Justice, peace, and religious liberty are contingent And sometimes obedience to on political influence. Since we God means disobeying man. are called to pursue justice in our nations, we should be politically Recently I sat down with Ryan involved. That includes being Helfenbein, the executive director discerning enough to see the of the Standing for Freedom slippery slopes that could lead to Center, to discuss the Equality calamitous results.

Act, or as it’s more The Bible is clear that “AND SOMETIMES, a p p r o p r i a t e l y the Church will face described: the OBEDIENCE TO challenges, whether Inequality Act. The GOD MEANS from government, DISOBEYING MAN.” tenets of this bill culture, or both. serve no justice to Regardless of the adversary, the its euphemistic title. To many in Church must be healthy if we our government, “equality” is are to endure. This means being an oppressive means of pushing united in purpose, grounded an unbiblical political narrative

9

detrimental to those in America across the faith spectrum.

The Equality Act negates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, which restrains Congress from passing any law that interferes with the right of Americans to freely worship God. In its current draft, this bill would make it so faith groups no longer have the ability to stand up for what we believe in — at least not freely and certainly not without government interference. Under this law, we will not be able to operate the way God’s Word tells us to operate.

We all want equality. Our nation was founded on the principle of equality for all men — but what is equal about extending certain rights to one group over religious folk who quite frankly weren’t even attacking those who this bill claims to protect?

The Equality Act would mean a Christian cake baker could lose his business if he doesn’t compromise his religious convictions by bowing to a selfidolatrous culture. It would mean Christian colleges may

lose accreditation unless they capitulate to a secular curriculum.

It means churches and faithbased organizations could lose their operating rights if they hold to biblical views of sexuality. Think about that: Under the Equality Act, a church could face legal action for believing in their longaffirmed, sincerely held beliefs.

Years ago, in conjunction with Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University, we founded the Liberty Godparent Home. Through this ministry, we provided shelter and support for young single women who were pregnant and wanted an alternative to abortion. With scripture as our foundation, we only adopt children to parents who are committed, practicing Christians. But under the Equality Act, the government may try to force ministries like ours to adopt children into non-Christian homes.

Why should we be so dogmatic in affirming our beliefs? Because we are not of this world and we have been called to be ambassadors for the Kingdom of God. As my

10

father, Jerry Falwell Sr., would say: “God didn’t call us to be popular.

He called us to be faithful.”

to seek biblical truth, how to deliver it effectively, and how to use this truth ministerially.

As I mentioned in my interview with Ryan, one big problem is that this oppressive legislation is not in the forefront of Christians’ minds. They don’t know what the Equality Act is because it’s being painted by politicians and the media as a civil rights law. But if they knew what it really entailed, they would be shocked to realize the degree to which it will negatively impact their ability to practice their faith. And make no mistake: Under this law, Christians will be persecuted.

Culture is heading off a cliff — and it is now traveling at breakneck speed. It’s up to the Church to intervene, grabbing who we can with the Gospel message and pointing them to truth. Some will argue that people hate us because of our truth and will suggest that we change our narrative to appease the masses. Such appeasement, however, would simply result in misleading a larger crowd.

Being bold in our truth is not the same as being hateful. The world will hate us for our truth. And if you think being nice and accommodating will somehow save you and your flock, just remember: Christ was the epitome of love — and they put Him on a cross.

For this reason, we must be engaged in our public sphere so we can discern what is just and what is not, and it is up to Christian leaders to ensure that our flocks are informed. But information doesn’t stop short at knowing the contents of the Equality Act. Being informed means knowing what Scripture says about cultural issues. Being informed means knowing how

11

W

OKE progressives have corrupted classical liberalism, the one-time bulwark of religious liberty and free speech. Were he alive today, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the liberal “Lion of the Senate” and chief advocate for the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, would likely be driven into exile by today’s woke mob for simply giving religious liberty a reasonable defense.

The conversion to woke progressivism as the dominant strain within political liberalism has been rapid, if subtle. Among other things, 2020 provided a useful political laboratory, laying bare

President, CEO, and Chief Counsel, First Liberty Institute • @_KShackelford

the woke hijacking of classical liberalism and its resulting impact on religious freedom.

Executive lockdowns — monocratic decrees inherently at odds with the classically liberal system of debating and refining legislation by the people’s democratically appointed lawmakers — became the order of the day in 2020.

At best, governors, claiming emergency powers, gave guidance through statewide executive orders. More often, however, governors, mayors, or county government officials issued hastily drafted, unilateral edicts bearing the full force of law, yet without the collective judgment derived from

12

deliberation and the dispersal In each of these cases, the First of power among many rather Amendment still applied. Both than vesting authority in one. states had a Religious Freedom For example, the mayor of Restoration Act requiring McKinney, Texas, put his city on government officials to assert a indefinite lockdown in the early compelling justification and act days of the pandemic. None but in the least restrictive means the most essential workers were possible. In neither case were permitted to leave their homes. city councilmen convened for Placing an entire community their input; rather, the executive on house arrest branch bypassed is a surefire way constitutional “PLACING AN ENTIRE to encroach upon safeguards COMMUNITY ON religious liberty and measured HOUSE ARREST IS A — especially legislative SUREFIRE WAY TO when the mayor’s policy by taking ENCROACH UPON orders prevented unilateral RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.” even two people action, causing from gathering great harm for religious purposes in any to religious liberty. one geographic location.

Not to be outdone, Gov. J.B. Pritzker tried to bully Illinois The mayor of Greenville, churches into submitting to his Mississippi, sent an entire COVID-19 edicts. Only after shift of the city’s police force members of the Illinois legislature to King James Bible Baptist attempted to call themselves Church with a message to into session to correct the the pastor: “Your rights are governor’s overreach and local suspended.” Suspended? Since churches called the governor’s when did government officials bluff by safely reopening get to unilaterally suspend following CDC guidance did the civil rights of its citizenry?

Pritzker change his tune.

13

Treating an edict by a governor or an order drafted in the mayor’s basement as a legislative enactment is foolish. Neither receive the measured wisdom wrought by the democratic process. Yet woke liberals have too often happily deferred to such pronouncements — even if they openly trample on fundamental constitutional rights. The foolishness of handing government officials such unchecked power, sadly, may only be realized when government officials turn and use that same unchecked power on them.

For now, the wisdom found in the Constitution holds. As Justice Neil Gorsuch observed recently, “It has never been enough for the State to insist on deference or demand that individual rights give way to collective interests . . . Even in times of crisis — perhaps especially in times of crisis — we have a duty to hold governments to the Constitution.”

In 2020, woke progressives often ignored the wisdom of classical liberalism as shown in our

democratic republic’s dispersal of power among many by too often giving sanction to a committee of one government official.

Now the woke threaten to pack the Supreme Court, ensuring their ability to trod upon constitutional freedoms like religious liberty unencumbered by legislative gridlock.

If mayors and governors, following the winds of woke liberalism, can push aside civil rights and ignore laws developed after reasoned, legislative debate in the name of public health, what will happen if woke progressives succeed in packing the Court with a bevy of liberal justices?

Classical liberalism was once a friend and ally to religious liberty. Today’s brand of woke, progressive liberalism may be its greatest threat.

The only vaccine against the doubling down of woke liberalism is a recommitment to the system of checks and balances once celebrated by classical liberalism and the founders of this great nation.

14

“sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)” law. These laws grant special protection to these classes as a means of preventing discrimination.

What It Is, What It Will Do, and Why Everyone Should Be Alarmed

• • • Nathan Skates

J

OE Biden has made the “Equality Act” a key part of his agenda for his first 100 days in office. The bill, which passed the House of Representatives in early March and has the support of nearly every Senate Democrat, claims to prevent discrimination against LGBTQ people, but many on the right and some on the left warn that the act promotes anything but equality.

WHAT IS THE EQUALITY ACT? The Equality Act would add sexual orientation and gender identity to existing civil rights laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making them federally protected classes.

The Equality Act is a type of

The House of Representatives first passed the Equality Act in 2019, but the bill was not voted on in the Senate.

WHAT DOES THE EQUALITY ACT DO AND WHO DOES IT IMPACT?

Supporters say that the act will provide protections for LGBTQ people, claiming that such an act is necessary to ensure equality and prevent discrimination.

What constitutes discrimination is not clearly defined, however.

The bill would expand the definition of “public accommodations” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “nearly every entity that provides goods, services, or programs.”

By broadening this definition, private businesses, religious schools or organizations, and medical facilities can be held liable for violating the Equality Act. The bill also “prohibits the Religious Freedom Restoration

15

Act of 1993 from providing a claim, defense, or basis for challenging such protections.”

The bill defines “sex” as determined by gender identity, not biological sex. Critics say that the Equality Act will have negative effects on many groups of Americans. These include: WOMEN AND GIRLS The Equality Act essentially rolls back equal opportunity and protections for women. One of the most well-known issues involves women’s sports. The act could force schools across the country to allow biological men who identify as women to participate in women’s sports.

The broad scope of the legislation would likely allow males to participate in girls’ sports even at religious schools. The act could also mean that women’s professional sports leagues and Olympic teams would be required to allow biological men to participate. Men have a distinct biological advantage in athletic competition and this would deny women opportunities that they diligently

worked for. This has already happened on several occasions, including in Connecticut where two biological men placed first and second in the high school girls’ track state championship.

It isn’t just sports where determining sex by gender identity instead of biological sex will deny opportunities to women. Programs like the Women-Owned Small Business federal contracting program help women compete for government contracts, but under the Equality Act, biological men would have access to funding for this and other programs intended to benefit women.

The Equality Act requires that people are allowed to use “public accommodations” that align with their gender identity, meaning biological males must be permitted to use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and places that employ group showers. In addition, domestic violence or rape crisis shelters, drug rehabilitation centers, jails, juvenile detention facilities, and homeless shelters would no longer be allowed to segregate based on biological sex.

16

This mandate makes women less safe. As the Family Research Council pointed out, “The EA specifically includes shelters in its expanded definition of ‘public accommodations.’

Therefore, shelters created to help battered women heal physically and emotionally from abuse by men would be forced to allow biological men into women’s private spaces, including in showers or sleeping quarters. One unfortunate example of this occurred in Alaska, where a biological man tried to gain residence in a battered women’s shelter (he is now suing the shelter). In California, a biological man was allowed to reside in a women’s shelter, and, according to a legal complaint, sexually harassed nine women.”

CHURCHES, FAITHBASED CHARITIES, AND RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND ORGANIZATIONS. The Equality Act, as currently drafted, applies to everyone — there are no exemptions for religious beliefs about marriage, gender, or sexuality. This elevates

the rights and privileges of LGBT members over people of faith. As such, under the law, churches and religious organizations could be required to pay for gender reassignment treatments and surgeries, contraceptives, and abortions for their employees.

They may have to open same-sex bathrooms to those who identify as the opposite sex. They may be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies in the sanctuary.

Faith-based adoption agencies could no longer adopt exclusively to heterosexual couples, based on the belief that a child deserves both a mother and a father.

“Essentially, the Equality Act gives people of faith an ultimatum: Change your faith-based practices or face government punishment,” said Sarah Kramer of Alliance Defending Freedom.

And it’s not just conservatives who recognize the danger.

Liberal law professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia gave this warning about the Equality Act:

17

“It goes very far to stamp out religious exemptions. It regulates religious non-profits. And then it says that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] does not apply to any claim under the Equality Act. This would be the first time Congress has limited the reach of RFRA. This 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.”

BUSINESS OWNERS Colorado cake baker Jack Phillips has become well known because he was sued for refusing to make a custom wedding cake for a samesex wedding because it violates his religious beliefs. Phillips was again sued for declining to make a custom gender transition cake. Other business owners across the country have found themselves in similar situations.

The Equality Act would mean cases like these become commonplace no matter what state you live in. The Equality Act would force business owners to either violate their religious beliefs or face a lawsuit.

PARENTS A parent’s right and responsibility to make decisions for and care for the emotional well-being of their children is already under attack. Many new state and local laws have undermined a parent’s right to know or consent if and when their child receives an abortion, cross-sex hormone therapy, and vaccinations. The Equality Act would nationalize that trend and completely devastate parental rights, according to the Heritage Foundation. Moreover, “Politicizing the medical treatment of gender dysphoria could lead to more prosecutions against parents who refuse to aid in the sterilization of their children. As more doctors recommend that children take puberty blockers at age 11, cross-sex hormones at 16, and undergo ‘sex-reassignment’ surgeries at 18, parents who resist could face charges of child abuse and lose custody of their children.”

18

DOES THE EQUALITY ACT HAVE THE FULL SUPPORT OF LGBTQ GROUPS? No. The Equality Act has been criticized by some supporters of LGBTQ rights. Gregory Angelo, a Republican gay rights activist, advocated for samesex marriage, but he warns that the Equality Act is dangerous.

“In the run-up to the United States Supreme Court marriage equality decisions of 2013 and 2015, gay advocates such as myself promised those we disagreed with that allowing same-sex couples to marry would have no effect on them, their families, or their faith. Passage of the ‘Equality Act’ would make liars out of the lot of us … There is potential for federal legislation that guarantees protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans while yet shielding people of faith and goodwill from heavy-handed punishment by the government.

But the ‘Equality Act’ isn’t it.”

Every American — whether liberal or conservative or whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, or even

atheist — should be alarmed at the prospect of the new Congress and the Biden administration choosing to run roughshod over the constitutional rights of people to speak and believe as they see fit and to adhere to traditional biological norms.

Under this law, many churches, charities, and businesses will be faced with a no-win dilemma: violate their conscience or shut down. And girls will be forced to undertake their most private bodily functions in full view of biological boys and men, inviting the potential for a variety of abuses.

No one wants homosexuals or transgenders to be mistreated in any way, but this top-down, onesize-fits-all, radical legislative measure will only result in an increasingly totalitarian system that will destroy our most cherished freedoms and institutions and further divide Americans. The Equality Act as written should be vigorously opposed and Democrats and President Biden should ponder very, very carefully the longterm unintended consequences of this liberty-abandoning law.

19

Without the filibuster, the greatest deliberative body in the world would lose its deliberative integrity and will fall prey to a steamrolling legislative process that prioritizes political agendas over representation —an irony our Founders fiercely fought to avoid.

Standing for freedom center

A

S Democrats took bicameral control of Congress, many conservatives became concerned that a progressive agenda will see no restraint. But thanks to the filibuster, the deliberative nature of the Senate remains, and the minority party still has leverage — for now.

Tyranny happens when masses are disregarded and representation is centralized in one body. The filibuster prevents such disproportionate ruling and serves as an insurance plan to critical dialogue, fair representation, and holistic democracy in the lawmaking process.

THE GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY IN THE WORLD? From a practical standpoint, such a description seems laughable considering how hard it is for the Senate to pass a bill.

But such a challenge speaks to the ingenious value of this parliamentary process. Two sides representing staunchly different doctrines coming together to govern should not be expected to pass legislation easily. If bills were passed easily, that could indicate a failure to represent varying ideas or it could indicate tyranny on the side of the majority party. The existence of the filibuster helps to ensure that the Senate operates in a cogitative and scrutinous fashion, as was intended with

20

the Senate’s establishment.

Both parties have something to gain from it. Without the filibuster, Republicans would almost definitely have already suffered defeat over the Equality Act and Democrats would have lost abortion funding long ago.

WHAT IS THE FILIBUSTER? Once used as an opportunity to read “Green Eggs and Ham” on the Senate floor, the filibuster is a procedural maneuver employing non-stop talking to prevent a vote in the Senate. Traditionally, a senator will use the debate period preceding the vote to speak their dissent, with no time limit and no topical parameters. The purpose is to filibuster until the legislative schedule is dissolved and no vote can be had. In order to stop a filibuster and move to a legislative vote, a cloture vote is taken, which requires three-fifths of the Senate to vote for it, or 60 senators. In modern times, a cloture vote is proactively taken to save time.

If a cloture vote can’t find 60 senators, then the bill that would otherwise need a simple

majority will not be voted on, as a filibuster would be inevitable.

But if the majority can’t win, doesn’t that mean the minority does? This is a common question when it comes to the filibuster’s logical conclusion.

The short answer is no, otherwise the minority would be tyrannical. The minority possesses power to block the opposing party’s agenda. It’s a defensive maneuver, but it doesn’t advance the minority party’s political agenda, which would be considered a win.

CAN THE FILIBUSTER BE USED TO DELAY ANY SENATE VOTE? No, as there are exceptions to the use of the filibuster. Per current Senate rules, the big issues that cannot be filibustered are budget reconciliations and federal judicial nominees. But these rules have changed over the years and these changes are often done in sync with the majority party’s political agenda. In 2013, Senate Democrats changed the Senate rules so that only Supreme Court nominees could be filibustered,

21

but federal district and appeals appointees could not be filibustered. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., made it this way because Republicans were blocking President Barack Obama’s federal district and appeals courts nominees. In 2017, Senate Republicans held the majority and changed the rules so that the filibuster could not be used to delay any federal judges, including Supreme Court nominees. ThenSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., changed the rules to ensure the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Budget reconciliations cannot be filibustered under current Senate rules since the purpose of a reconciliation is to quickly pass what is fiscally necessary, and reserve other budgetary legislation for another vote.

This raises a concern as to whether a majority party will take advantage of the process and stuff a reconciliation with rider policies unrelated to the budget, knowing they cannot be filibustered. To this, we have the Byrd Rule. Named after former

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.V., the Byrd Rule installs strict parameters for a reconciliation’s content to ensure it stays within budgetary purposes.

Even still, not-so-subtle agendas can be implemented.

For example, the $1.9 trillion COVID package passed in early 2021 failed to include Hyde Amendment protections, which would have prohibited the package’s monetary contribution for elective abortions. Since reconciliations can’t be filibustered and only require a simple majority, the package passed.

CAN THE FILIBUSTER BE ELIMINATED, AND, IF SO, WILL IT? Yes, the filibuster can be eliminated, but such a move is not likely nor wise for either party. Since the filibuster prevents authoritarianism by the majority party, it is in each party’s best interest to sustain the filibuster, lest the majority party reap the non-deliberative consequences when they become the minority.

There are two ways to eliminate

22

the filibuster. The first option would be to amend Senate Rule 22, which is the most objective option. However, it is also very unlikely since it requires 67 votes.

The second option would be to go nuclear, which only requires a simple majority to pass but also sets a dangerous precedent.

Like eliminating the filibuster, the nuclear option can lead to retribution once the minority party becomes the majority.

But whether a nuclear option is even a viable strategy at this point is doubtful. A simple majority is needed to invoke the nuclear option, and with no Republicans on board it would require every Democrat plus Vice President Harris’ tie-breaking role.

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Krysten Sinema of Arizona have both expressed strong opposition. Manchin, whose moderate procedural views have effectively made him the Justice Kennedy of the Senate, has long opposed eliminating the filibuster, saying in 2020, “I have never supported a repeal of the filibuster and I don’t support one now.

I am willing to consider solutions that

promote collaboration so the Senate is able to be a productive body again.

But repealing the filibuster would result in even more partisanship.”

ARE C H T L A E H RS PROVIDE MUST USE

VO CATE ICE TO AD

THEIR VO

Manchin reiterated his position in 2021,

for Religious

“I do not support doing away with the filibuster under any condition. It’s not who I am.”

G R IT R A L IN T E AND MO • • • • •

m o d e e r f AK ER S • • DR SH AN NA • • • • • • •

Y •

Sinema said, “Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, it’s meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be: a place where senators come together, find compromise, and get things done for our country.”

The chance of a filibuster elimination is just as possible as it is improbable. But the fact that Democrats in the Senate are as supportive as they are about such an elimination is concerning. To maintain its deliberative stature, the upper chamber must hold itself accountable by securing the filibuster as a procedural anchor in advancing our fairly represented democracy. Otherwise, what’s the point of even having a Senate?

23

Dean, Liberty University School of Nursing • @DrAkersRN

H

E A L T H C A R E professionals are no strangers to ethical dilemmas – many of which surround the value of life. Broad topics such as abortion and “medical aid in dying” (formerly known as physician-assisted suicide) are routinely discussed in ethics meetings at healthcare

systems around the country.

We must all use our voice.

If we are not engaged in the conversation, our values and our beliefs will be sidelined for the preference of those with a louder voice. For healthcare professionals, this is no different.

Christian physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals must understand their personal beliefs and morals related to these potential dilemmas. They must also know how to advocate for self while understanding the resources available to support their conscientious objection.

Conscientious objection (CO) is the action of not participating in an activity because of one’s personal moral or religious beliefs. While cited frequently during times of war and when individuals are drafted into the military, CO can also be used to protect the moral integrity of the healthcare professional. Nurses may object to participating in an elective abortion on the grounds of CO and his or her personal

24

value for life. Physicians may Personal CO rights for conscientiously object to healthcare providers are engaging in medical aid in dying protected under federal statutes, based on his or her worldview. including, but not limited to: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has also created The Church Amendments situations in which the preserve the right to religious freedoms of healthcare object to personal providers and patients alike participation in abortion have been in jeopardy. In or sterilization procedures. recent news, a dying man was denied a visit from his clergy The Weldon Amendment based on hospital p r e v e n t s policies that discrimination “WE MUST ALL USE limited visitors against a health OUR VOICE. IF WE due to pandemic system, hospital, ARE NOT ENGAGED IN concerns.

A or individual THE CONVERSATION, male nurse was provider who OUR VALUES AND asked to shave does not engage OUR BELIEFS WILL his beard, which in the provision BE SIDELINED FOR was in violation of or payment THE PREFERENCE of his personal for abortions.

OF THOSE WITH A religious beliefs, LOUDER VOICE.” though a product The Affordable was available that Care Act Section would have both protected 1553 (42 USC § 18113) protects him from contracting the virus those who oppose and refuse to and would have protected participate in assisted suicide, his religious integrity. euthanasia, or mercy killing.

These two examples are not anomalies in the challenges These statutes protect the faced in healthcare today. freedoms of individual healthcare professionals and healthcare

25

organizations to object to these actions that are in opposition to their religious or moral beliefs.

While abortion and the freedom to conscientiously object continues, the discussion of the role of the healthcare professional in medical aid in dying has begun to pick up traction. In 2016, Canada legalized medical aid in dying.

In 2019, the American Nurses Association updated its position statement on euthanasia to add consideration on the role of the nurse when a patient seeks medical aid in dying. The American Medical Association’s “Principles of Medical Ethics” opinions 1.1.7 and 5.7 explore the argument from a medical ethics perspective where the physician must remain true to self and provide care to the patient.

This internal conflict can be experienced when caring for the patient, providing end-of-life care, and minimizing pain and discomfort while at the same time caring for self, providing moral integrity, and maintaining emotional/spiritual well-being.

America is facing all-time high

levels of burnout in both nursing and medical professionals. Some of this fatigue is due to the challenge of reconciling personal beliefs and religious morals with the trends of healthcare and the shortage of resources (both the scarcity of providers and of supplies). In higher education, faculty have an opportunity to build competencies in resiliency and guide students in their development of knowledge, skill, and attitude specific to their chosen profession.

For those in medicine, nursing, and healthcare, faculty must explore CO through deeper discussion, provide resources for maintaining moral integrity, and support students in creating a voice for self-advocacy.

Thomas Jefferson stated on more than one occasion that scientia potentia est — knowledge is power.

Knowing one’s freedoms to conscientiously object to actions (or inactions) that would violate one’s personal religious and deeply held

26

morals is essential. And the use of this knowledge to give voice and action is fundamental to our ability to preserve this freedom for ourselves and the next generation.

To learn more about CO, protected freedoms for

healthcare providers, and how to file a complaint, please visit the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to download guidance and resources, including “Conscience Protections for Healthcare Providers” and “Conscience and Religious Freedom.”

david

closson

Director of Christian Ethics at Family Research Council • @davidclosson

T

HE biblical worldview teaches that all people are made in God’s image and possess inherent value and dignity.

Furthermore, Christians are told to do justice (Micah 6:8), love our neighbor (Mark 12:31), and reject partiality (James 2:1).

Therefore, Christians should

oppose unjust discrimination.

But does that mean Christians should support the Equality Act? In a word, no. Contrary to its name, the Equality Act does not advance equality or stymie unjust discrimination. A careful analysis of the bill’s text reveals that it will accelerate discrimination

27

against tens of millions of Americans whose beliefs about human sexuality and marriage are informed by science and religious convictions. It will mandate conformity to an ideology antithetical to core tenets of the biblical worldview and codify a host of harmful social policies that touch on nearly every facet of life.

The full implications of a bill as expansive as the Equality Act are difficult to predict; however, the most immediate effects are clear. The Equality Act would remove existing religious liberty protections, dramatically expand abortion access, and threaten women’s equality, privacy, and safety.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY Persuasion, not coercion, is the means of drawing followers to the Gospel. The Greek word peitho (to persuade, to induce one by words to believe) is used to describe the apostle Paul’s evangelism (Acts 19:8, 28:23; 2 Corinthians 5:11).

By enshrining religious liberty in the First Amendment, the framers of the U.S. Constitution acknowledged that people should be free to believe what they want to in regards to doctrine and to order their lives in accordance with those

beliefs. Unfortunately, the Equality Act undermines that freedom by gutting existing religious liberty protections and coercing acceptance of a new orthodoxy.

First, the Equality Act expands the definition of public accommodation to include any organization that provides goods, services, or programs to their communities. This means houses of worship may no longer be allowed to have sex-specific programs or private facilities.

Furthermore, churches could be required to hire people for non-ministerial positions who do not agree with the church’s beliefs on marriage and sexuality.

Second, the Equality Act explicitly exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which passed unanimously in the House and 97-3 in the Senate before President Bill Clinton signed it into law in 1993. If a religious individual believes the Equality Act has violated their beliefs, RFRA is no longer a claim they can bring in court. If they are sued for non-compliance, RFRA is not a defense they can raise.

Similarly, the Equality Act would threaten the existence of Christian seminaries, universities, and colleges that receive any form of

28

federal financial assistance — potentially including federal loans, which many students rely on to pay tuition. By amending Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a “catch-all” non-discrimination provision on all federal funds, the Equality Act would require schools that receive federal funding to comply with its sexual orientation and gender identity requirements, including admissions and housing standards. The financial impact would be devastating for Christian colleges that refused to comply, and many would be forced to shut down.

LIFE Under the Equality Act, sex discrimination would be redefined to incorporate language that courts have previously ruled includes abortion. This redefinition — in conjunction with the bill’s RFRA exemption and expansion of what constitutes a public accommodation — jeopardizes long-standing federal conscience laws that protect medical professionals and taxpayers opposed to abortion. By means of these changes, the Equality Act would effectively create a legislative right to abortion.

Scripture is clear that innocent human life ought

to be protected. For example, consider Proverbs 24:11-12: “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Behold, we did not know this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?”

Furthermore, Psalm 139 attests to the personhood of the unborn.

In verses 13-16, David describes God’s dealings with him in utero: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”

Elsewhere, the Bible affirms the personhood of the unborn in Luke 1:39-45, Jeremiah 1:4-5, and Exodus 21:22-25.

By expanding abortion access, the Equality Act further entrenches the culture of death that has claimed the lives of 62 million unborn children since the U.S.

29

Supreme Court decided Roe v.

Wade in 1973. In 2019 alone, Planned Parenthood aborted a record-high 354,871 children.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:17)

WOMEN’S EQUALITY, PRIVACY, AND SAFETY The Equality Act would redefine “sex” to include gender identity.

This would prove detrimental to women’s equality, privacy, and safety in a variety of ways. For instance, biological males who identify as female would have to be allowed to compete in women’s sports. Not only is it unsafe for women to compete against biological males in high-contact sports (due to males being faster and stronger on average), but this policy would also unfairly penalize female athletes for their physiological makeup and inhibit their ability to be seen by college recruiters and obtain scholarships.

Furthermore, the Equality Act would sacrifice women’s safety and privacy on the altar of political correctness by requiring the admittance of biological males who identify as female into women’s public bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and even battered women’s shelters.

Scripture is clear that God created two sexes:

God created both men and women to be His image-bearers but also made them distinctly male and female. To deny these distinctions is to reject God’s good and perfect design. .

CONCLUSION Scripture is clear that it is unjust to show partiality: “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.” (James 2:1).

“To show partiality is not good, but for a piece of bread a man will do wrong.” (Proverbs 28:21).

However, the Equality Act is not equal nor is it just. It shows partiality towards a radical LGBT agenda and discriminates against millions of Americans. Christians are called to love our neighbors but nowhere in the Bible are we required to compromise the safety and well-being of some of our neighbors to accommodate the desires of a few. We should stand strong against this false representation of equality so that freedom can thrive in our nation.

30

N O I L L E B E “R

to tyrants •••••• NCE • • • •

IE • • IS OBED ••••••••••

”

•

to god IBBS • • • JACK H ••••••••••

••••••••••

•••

It was now critical for me to hear from our governor as to how he wanted the Church to respond to the needs in our community.

I sent a request to Gov. Gavin Newsom asking what his guidelines would be regarding the role of the Church in this crisis.

Senior Pastor, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills • @RealJackHibbs

T

“shutdown” to weaken the coronavirus. Like most pastors, I submitted to this request even though it troubled me to shut the doors of my church, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills. When he asked for 15 more days to “flatten the curve,” I again complied. Little was known about the virus, but after 30 days, jurisdiction was given to the governor of each state, including my own state of California, where strict stay at home orders had been implemented.

HESE words etched in steel hang at Thomas Jefferson’s beloved Monticello. A little-known fact is that it was Benjamin Franklin who first put forth this challenge and requested that it be the motto of the United States. Although that did not turn out to be the case, Jefferson adopted it as his own.

Early in 2020, President Trump requested a 15-day

After seeking God’s Word, it was clear that our church must go about our Father’s business of loving and caring for our community.

Although the governor continued to ban indoor worship, our doors needed to open. Still waiting to hear back from the governor, I sent a video to him of what the Church’s function has always been in time of crisis and informed him that we would open on Sunday, May 31, 2020.

It was time for us to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). We

31

were to honor God’s commission, politics at the expense of being “not forsaking the assembling of disobedient to God? How is it ourselves together, as is the manner of that our heavenly calling was some, but exhorting suspended by one another, and “HOW IS IT THAT OUR authorities who so much the more argued among HEAVENLY CALLING as you see the Day t h e m s e l ves?

WAS SUSPENDED BY approaching” Perhaps the AUTHORITIES WHO (Hebrews 10:25). greatest illness ARGUED AMONG THEMSELVES?” of all wasn’t the I invited pastors virus, but silence. across the nation A devilish grip took hold of many to open their doors based upon Christian leaders’ voices — their Jesus’ exhortation: “Behold, I have preaching was silenced. Most set before you an open door, and no disabling is that many of these one can shut it” (Revelation 3:8). pastors can never again preach Amid oppressive, discriminate a sermon on “How to Stand restrictions some pastors heeded Courageous” or “Learning How the call, but others did not. Some Not to Fear.” Many churches have opened only after permission was seen their flocks scattered as they given by their local governments, wander in search of pastures to feed. while others remain closed.

What and when businesses could open was decided by chance.

Politicians determined what was essential or nonessential. Most states considered the Church a “nonessential entity.” Yet, throughout history the Church has been the most effective means by which the love and compassion of God has been displayed to a lost and hurting world.

When does the autonomous, Godappointed Church seek permission from a government on when or how to do God’s business? When did pastors become obedient to

Because the severity of COVID-19 was unknown, implementing safety restrictions was understandable during the first few months of 2020. But now a year later, churches are still cowering to unreasonable restrictions.

Dear Church, it is time to heed Jesus’ words: “Behold, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it.” Some say that if you open your church you will be in violation of Romans, Chapter 13. However, in it, Paul reveals the reason government was created by God: Authority

32

that is established by God has been for the implementation and maintaining that which is good and not evil.

When authority becomes tyrannical, it must be overcome with good. The Church has proven that we ought to “obey God rather than men.” When someone in authority views the Church as nonessential and irrelevant, that leader has abdicated their post as a God-appointed leader. Therefore, I am imploring pastors to recognize how far the government has overreached its authority and violated God’s will.

At times, obeying the will of God requires disobedience to this world’s system. During World War II, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn’t just preach the Word — he and his fellow pastors lived the Word by engaging the culture with righteousness.

The Standing for Freedom Center has put together guidance to provide encouragement and help with the opening of your church, suggesting that pastors should, in fact, open their churches — not for the sake of defying government but to show obedience to God. Make sure your church is open this Sunday!

Chike Uzuegbunam

Chike Uzuegbunam, Evangelist

G

ROWING up, I heard countless stories from my parents about the wonderful freedoms they enjoyed here in America. My parents immigrated to America from Nigeria, and they wanted us to understand why: because they believed that America respects and protects our Godgiven rights — including the right to live and share our beliefs freely.

They taught us that true freedom is a rare gift, and they raised us to cherish and protect that gift.

33

But my school, Georgia Gwinnett all kinds of ideas, seemed like the College, appears to hold a different perfect place, so I started going to the vision of America. There, I didn’t public areas of campus and inviting have the freedom to share my other students to chat with me. beliefs and convictions with others, as college officials stopped me from But an administrator approached doing so twice. At me where I was that moment, I had speaking and told “I CHOSE TO STAND to decide which me — and only UP FOR THE GIFT OF vision of America I me — to stop FREEDOM. THOUGH was going to follow: speaking. Even as I DIDN’T KNOW IT the one my parents other conversations AT THE TIME, THAT gave me, of a nation buzzed around me, DECISION WOULD that protected the administrator TAKE ME ALL THE my God-given told me that in WAY TO THE UNITED rights, or the one order to speak, STATES SUPREME from my college, I would have to COURT.” which denied reserve a time me those rights. to speak in one of two “speech zones.”

I chose to stand up for the gift of freedom. Though I didn’t These zones were a tiny fraction of know it at the time, that decision campus — roughly comparable to a would take me all the way to the piece of paper on a football field — United States Supreme Court. and they were only open 10 percent of the week. But I tried to follow The case started when officials at the policy. I made a reservation Georgia Gwinnett College stopped and came to speak. But after only me from publicly speaking about a few minutes, two campus police my Christian faith on campus. I was officers approached me and told me a new Christian, and I wanted to to stop talking. They claimed that share with my fellow GGC students someone had complained (why, I was what Jesus Christ was doing in never told) and that therefore I did my life. The open areas of campus, not have the right to speak — even where students gathered daily to within the so-called “speech zones.” discuss and share opinions about

34

I knew this was not right. I knew that every American’s God-given right to freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution itself, and that includes protecting our freedom to discuss things we may not always agree about. Indeed, this freedom of speech is the foundation of all other rights. Government officials like my college’s administrators cannot take that freedom away.

So, with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, I decided to sue Georgia Gwinnett College for violating my freedoms of speech and religion.

For a long time, though, it did not look like I was going to get justice. First, the college officials tried to deny that I had any free speech rights at all; they suggested that presenting the gospel was not speech that the First Amendment protects. Then they switched tactics and tried to avoid accountability. They revised the unconstitutional policies that they used to silence me and claimed that since they’d changed the policies, they did not need to apologize or make restitution.

And unfortunately, two lower courts agreed, leaving me with no recourse.

I did not sue the By this time, I “I DID NOT SUE THE college simply for had graduated, COLLEGE SIMPLY FOR my own rights. I and those MY OWN RIGHTS. I wanted to make sure opportunities to that other students share my faith with WANTED TO MAKE would not face my fellow students SURE THAT OTHER similar censorship. were gone forever.

STUDENTS WOULD And the more I The damage for me NOT FACE SIMILAR looked into the was permanent.

CENSORSHIP.” situation, the more But the college I learned about how government insisted — and the courts agreed officials all over the country — that this did not matter. try to trample on, ignore, and suppress Americans’ God-given But thankfully, the Supreme freedoms. This must stop, and I Court agreed to hear my case. hope this lawsuit will help stop it.

In the months leading up to the hearing, I was amazed to see organizations from

35

across the ideological spectrum standing up and supporting me.

It quickly became clear that Georgia Gwinnett College is not the only example of government officials treating our constitutional rights with disdain. A growing number of government leaders seem to think that they can violate rights, and that, if they are called out, they can simply change the problematic policies and avoid accountability.

When people heard about my case — even many people who do not agree with my convictions — they joined me in asking the Supreme Court to hold my college accountable.

And in January 2021, the Supreme Court chose to do just that. In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled in my favor, saying that government officials can be held accountable to the victim when they violate our constitutional rights.

When I heard the ruling, I was amazed and humbled by how my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ had used my case to protect freedom across this country. After all, that is what my parents taught me to believe America is about: opportunities and true freedom for all people, no matter what they believe.

standing for freedom center

J

OE Manchin may have effectively become the Justice Kennedy of the Senate. When all others have spoken and a tie is imminent, his decision could be the deciding factor. With Democrat control of the White House and an evenly split Senate, all eyes have turned to the moderate senator.

Supreme Court nominees, budget reconciliations, and major tax matters may fall to the mercy of Sen. Manchin, who many are now describing as the most powerful member of the upper chamber.

But who is Joe Manchin, and why is he suddenly so “powerful?”

Joe Manchin is the senior senator from West Virginia. His moderate reputation explains how he, a Democrat, has found so much political success in a state that carries harmonious voting habits.

The Mountain State hadn’t,

36

until 2015, elected a Republican senator since the late 1950s, but has voted for Republican presidential candidates for the past 20 years. West Virginia elected Manchin governor from 2005-2010 and has since thrice elected him to the U.S. Senate, including one special election.

His newfound power rests in the fact that his vote, in some circumstances, will determine whether or not the evenly split Senate will end up in a draw, thus invoking the tie-breaking role of Vice President Kamala Harris, who serves as the president of the Senate. In these cases the victory will inevitably go to Democrats. However, he’s not the only variable, considering the moderate tendencies of some Republicans, namely Sens.

Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah.

WHEN WILL MANCHIN’S VOTE MATTER? Manchin’s vote will be significant in simple majority scenarios that, per Senate rules, cannot be filibustered.

Examples primarily include budget

reconciliations and federal judge/justice confirmations.

Budget reconciliations are a tool used in Congress to pass timesensitive, high-priority budgetary adjustments. Unlike broader budgetary and general legislation, reconciliations cannot be filibustered. That said, Democrats are likely to be victorious with budget reconciliations.

This raises the concern as to whether budget reconciliations can be packed with rider legislation unrelated to the budget and slammed through a vote. But this concern should be reserved since, to that threat, we have the Byrd Rule, which is named for its sponsor, former Sen. Robert C. Byrd, whose seat Sen. Joe Manchin filled. This rule applies scrutiny to the content of the reconciliation and aims to filter out any non-budgetary agendas.

In short, the purpose of the Byrd Rule is to ensure the integrity of budget reconciliations so that no party slips in their legislative agenda under the guise of “budgetary” purposes. Already in 2021, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough invoked the Byrd Rule to strip the Democrats’ $15 an hour minimum

37

wage hike proposal out of the recent $1.9 trillion COVID relief package passed by Congress.

Amy Coney Barrett (2020) received no Democrat votes.

SUPREME COURT It is worth noting that the eldest of the high court’s jurists, Justice Stephen Breyer, is 82 and will likely be retiring during the Biden administration. With an evenly split Senate and the near party-line votes for the last three Supreme Court justices, it is possible that Breyer’s successor would face a tie in confirmation. But the chance of a tie is not likely, given that Republicans have been more supportive of left-leaning nominees than Democrats have been of right-leaning nominees.

Manchin was one of three Democrats to vote in favor of confirming Gorsuch and the lone Democrat to confirm Kavanaugh, but refused to vote in favor of Barrett — not on her merit, but on the principle of the then-upcoming election.

If history is precedent, Breyer’s confirmation will see nearfull Democrat support and some Republican support, nullifying the chance of a tie.

Of the last two liberal justices to be confirmed, Justice Elena Kagan (2010) garnered five Republican votes while Justice Sonia Sotomayor (2009) garnered nine Republican votes. Since then, three justices have been confirmed (all rightleaning) and received less support from Democrats. Justice Neil Gorsuch (2017) received three Democrat votes, Justice Brett Kavanaugh (2018) received one Democrat vote, and Justice

WHERE WILL MANCHIN BREAK FROM DEMOCRATS? Perhaps the most influential areas where Manchin breaks from his Democrat colleagues are the filibuster and court-packing.

And while some would describe him as a pro-life Democrat, his record doesn’t hail him as such.

Manchin has been loud and clear in his opposition to ending the filibuster, an idea that his Democrat colleagues have touted over the last year.

In July 2020, Manchin said,

38

“I have never supported a repeal of the filibuster and I don’t support one now.

I am willing to consider solutions that promote collaboration so the Senate is able to be a productive body again.

But repealing the filibuster would result in even more partisanship.”

formal changing of the Senate rules, which requires a two-thirds majority (67 votes). A two-thirds majority vote is a dream not realistically met, and Manchin and Sen. Krysten Sinema, D-Ariz., have both opposed using the nuclear option, essentially Manchin affirmed his position blocking any nuclear chance. in January 2021, saying, Like the filibuster, both parties know that they will eventually be “I do not support in the minority, doing away with which is why the the filibuster nuclear option is “PROCEDURE under any largely avoided. condition. It’s TRUMPS not who I am.”

On courtPOLICY, packing , BECAUSE The filibuster M a n c h i n PROCE DURE is not likely to has been DETERMINES change anytime aggressively soon. Generally clear that he has POLICY.” speaking, no intention ending the of supporting filibuster would such measures. be detrimental to the minority party since it would rid them “Let me be clear: I will not vote of any leverage in the voting to pack the courts and I will not process — and both parties vote to end the filibuster. The U.S. know that they will eventually Senate is the most deliberative body be in the minority, which is one in the world. It was made so that reason the filibuster has survived. we work together in a bipartisan way. If you get rid of the filibuster, To end the filibuster would require there’s no reason to have a Senate.” either a nuclear option, which needs a simple majority, or a

39

One issue that is a misnomer for those who hail Manchin as a centrist is his position on the Equality Act. Manchin has voiced support for the Equality Act, despite its attacks on religious liberty. As was mentioned earlier in this journal, the likelihood of the Equality Act’s passage is highly unlikely, considering it would need 60 votes to close debate and the filibuster is still in place.

Procedure trumps policy, because procedure determines policy. The retention of the filibuster is crucial to ensure the parliamentary body remains deliberative and not tyrannical. Manchin is hardly a moderate on policy, but his support for the filibuster is highly favored by moderate and bona fide conservatives.

The highly oppressive Equality Act and other measures favored

by Democrats would all become realities in American culture if not for the filibuster. That said, Manchin’s procedural integrity is admirable since he places it above his own policy agenda — which should not be mistaken as a moderate one on either abortion or civil rights.

T” C A E L P O E P •••••• E ••••••• • “FOR TH • • • • • • • • ••••

“

ED IS D ES IG N

NC TO EN T RE

H P O W ER

fPOoLrITICtIAhNeS” standing for freedom center

H

.R. 1, or the “For the

People Act,” which passed along party lines in early March, is a gargantuan 791page bill that will nationalize elections by overruling state laws and implementing new voting processes and campaign funding mechanisms.

Some of the most notable provisions of the bill include: • Permanently expands mailin voting in all states, legalizes ballot harvesting, and requires states to count mail-in votes up to 10 days after Election Day. • Eliminates voter I.D. requirements for both inperson and absentee voters and requires states to automatically register all eligible citizens to vote from federal and state

40

databases, as well as offer same-day voter registration.

• Forces states to implement a minimum of 15 days of early voting.

• Places the federal government in charge of redistricting, which must include legal and illegal aliens.

• Allows people ages 16 and 17 to register to vote and restores voting rights to felons.

One of the most surprising changes is the formation of the “Freedom From Influence Fund.”

The fund is ostensibly intended to combat “dark money” and influence from big donors as well as to encourage small donors. The fund will multiply any campaign donation of up to $200 by 600 percent, meaning that if a citizen donates the maximum $200 to a candidate, the government chips in another $1,200. Critics call the fund a tax.

The bill also requires corporations, unions, nonprofit political advocacy groups, and even political speakers to

disclose the names of their donors and any campaign expenditures of over $10,000.

Even the ACLU had issues with this provision, noting in a letter to Congress that it “could harm political advocacy and expose non-profit donors to harassment and threats of violence should their support for organizations be subject to forced disclosure.”

Another controversial aspect of the bill sets guidelines for who may serve on redistricting commissions, requiring candidates to disclose “any involvement with, or financial support of, professional, social, political, religious, or community organizations or causes.” Critics claim this amounts to a religious test for public service, which is expressly banned in the Constitution.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said that the bill “is the single most dangerous piece of legislation before Congress — what I call HR-1 is the corrupt politicians act.” He stated that the very first act Democrats have attempted to pass is “about ensuring that Democrats remain in power and

41

control for the next 100 years. It is a radical bill. What does it do? It federalizes all elections; it strikes down every election reform protection at the state level.”

Newly elected Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., said the bill was needed because “we are witnessing right now a massive and unabashed assault on voting rights unlike anything we’ve ever seen since the Jim Crow era. This is Jim Crow in new clothes.” Warnock called H.R. 1 “a major step in the march toward our democratic ideals.”

The White House said of the bill, “In the wake of an unprecedented assault on our democracy, a never before seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, and a newly aggressive attack on voting rights taking place right now all across the country, this landmark legislation is urgently needed to protect the right to vote and the integrity of our elections, and to repair and strengthen American democracy.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, claimed the bill will only

worsen Americans’ distrust of election security, saying, “This bill makes elections less trustworthy, not more, and trust is everything. People can see the faults in the process. Whether it’s ballots at the wrong house or careless verification processes, they believe people are cheating.” ... “This bill makes permanent the problematic election practices that cause distrust…. The integrity of our elections must be self-evident, where the mere possibility of fraud is improbable because the process itself is airtight and secure.”

The likelihood of quick lawsuits over the constitutionality of the measure is already taking shape.

For example, in early March, 20 state attorneys general sent a letter to Congress in which they promised to seek legal remedies if H.R. 1 becomes law. They argued: “The Act betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates that, if passed, would federalize state elections and impose burdensome costs and regulations on state and local officials. Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of

42

the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal — and with presidential elections, exclusive — responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections. The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance.”

Not only is H.R. 1 possibly unconstitutional, but it is also in direct opposition to the will of the American people.

While H.R. 1 abolishes voter I.D. requirements, 75 percent of all voters and 82 percent of minorities say that it is common sense to require a photo I.D. before allowing someone to vote and 72 percent of voters said voter I.D. laws boost their confidence in elections, according to a survey by Rasmussen Reports.

Those numbers have actually increased significantly since 2018, when the last survey was taken. Further, 73 percent of respondents say that ballots should arrive at election offices

by Election Day, and 63 percent say that ballots should be mailed only to those who request them.

FROM THE EDITOR

Unfortunately, it seems the American people are largely unaware of what H.R. 1 entails.

Even though 75 percent of voters support voter I.D., only 53 percent said they would oppose legislation that overturned voter identification requirements and 43 percent said they have not even heard of H.R. 1.

FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon said, “The more the people learn out about H.R.1, the more they strongly oppose it. Democrats have the nerve to say that their election overhaul bill is ‘for the people,’ but if this polling tells us anything, it’s that this bill wasn’t written with much input from the people at all.”

If Democrats are truly concerned about election security, then it leaves one to question why they want to force through a bill with requirements that the American people believe will decrease election security. H.R. 1 may be called the “For the People Act,” but it is clear that the only people benefiting from the bill are Democrat politicians.

43

john wesley reid

Editor-in-Chief, Standing for Freedom Center • @johnwesleyreid

T

This is causing Democrats to face the awkward reality that they, too, once enthusiastically supported religious freedom. After all, the landmark Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which has since served as a pillar for religious liberty victories at the Supreme Court, was sponsored by, voted for by, endorsed by, and signed into law by Democrats.

When it came to religious liberty, bipartisan support was normal.

Indeed, the 1993 bill was spearheaded by a younger New York representative by the name of Charles “Chuck” Schumer, abetted by a heavy Democrat majority in the House. The House passed the RFRA unanimously, and the Democrat-controlled Senate sent it to President

HIRTY years ago, only conspiracies would allude to where our country is today.

With late-term abortions touted by national leaders, favoritism of Marxist-based initiatives, and all but subtle violations of religious liberty becoming routine, it almost makes one wish for the politics of yesterday.

Fast forward to today as Democrats in Washington D.C. are aggressively trying to pass the Equality Act, legislation that would severely undermine religious freedom across the faith spectrum.

44

Clinton’s desk with a 97-3 vote.

Suffice to say, Democrats seemed quite on board with religious freedom, with Clinton stating, “What [the RFRA] basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion. This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the Congress. We believe strongly that we can never — we can never — be too vigilant in this work.”

The challenge Democrats currently face lies within their own success. They accomplished their goal of advancing religious freedom in 1993, but such advancement backfired on Democrats when the RFRA protected conservatives at the Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and served as a platform for many state-level religious freedom laws that favor conservatism.

But Democrats today, particularly RFRA supporters who are still in office, attempt to reconcile this Nearly 30 years later, the same deviation by saying that the RFRA party is singing a significantly was not intended different tune to enable and the young rep “THE CHALLENGE discrimination from New York, but rather to now the Senate DEMOCRATS protect smaller majority leader, CURRENTLY religions from is faced with a FACE LIES government new challenge.

WITHIN THEIR overreach, citing Sen. Schumer is OWN SUCCESS.” Employment trying to pass a Division v. Smith polar opposite (1990) as an example of why the bill with a not-so-heavy majority protection is needed. In Smith, as he had in 1993. Democrats the Supreme Court ruled that in today’s Congress, over 30 states could deny unemployment of whom supported the RFRA benefits to those who violate state in 1993, are pushing for the prohibitions, which, in this case, Equality Act — a bill that was the use of peyote as a sacrament expressly exempts the RFRA. in Native American ceremonies.

45

In other words, Democrats tout religious freedom when it comes to ceremonial elements, but when it comes to deeply held doctrinal positions on sexuality and the sanctity of life, these beliefs are no longer deemed worthy of protection.

To compensate for their inadvertent success in 1993, the Democrats’ Equality Act says that the RFRA cannot be used as a claim when religious discrimination occurs as a result of its implementation, nor can it be used as a defense when sued for following religious tenets not in line with the mandate of the Equality Act. The irony of their defense is fascinating. They say that they are protecting “the little guy from the big guy,” but laws aren’t made to protect a minority at the expense of the majority. That is, if a law is installed to protect religious minorities, the same protections would be applied to religious majorities. After all, what happens when the minority religion grows to the point where it has become a commonly practiced faith group in the U.S.? Is it no longer protected?

What really happened here is that Democrats exploited religious minorities to push a narrative in the form of a bill — a bill that backfired and forced them to draft their redemptive Equality Act. While the Equality Act is almost certainly not passible in the Senate, at least in its current draft, the enthusiasm behind it should be concerning. The Equality Act amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add sexual orientation and gender identity to currently protected classes such as race, age, and national origin.

Realistically speaking, this will do nothing to advance LGBT employment rights. LGBT people are already protected from workplace discrimination in non-sectarian settings. The only employers who will be impacted by this are private, faith-based organizations that require their employees to adhere to their statements of faith — and LGBT people aren’t likely to pursue careers at these organizations anyway unless to intentionally instigate legal action. As we’ve seen in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, attacking one’s religious beliefs at the expense of their livelihood is not beyond the purview of the left.

46

1971 U N I V E R SIT Y B LV D. LY N CH BU RG , VA 24515