Making Prayer a Crime?

“So, are you praying?” asked the British policeman to the woman who had been standing quietly across the street from an abortion business in Birmingham.

“Well, I’m not saying anything.  But, yes, I’m praying in my mind.”

“So, you are praying?” the policeman repeated.

“Well, yes.”

“Then you’ll have to come to the station with us, ma’am.”  And he put Isabel Vaughn-Spruce, a local leader of 40 Days for Life, under arrest.

Tragically, denials of what have historically been the sacred freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and conscience are happening more and more as leftist tyrants and their all-too-willing toadies in the press, schools, business, and government bureaucracies ramp up their intolerance of the ideals of Western civilization, Christianity, and Christians.

We have, of course, been dealing with this sad injustice for awhile now. Bakers, innkeepers, and florists are denied the freedoms of religion and conscience. Coaches cannot pray with their teams (no matter how willing the student/athletes are to do so) and valedictorians are not allowed to mention Jesus to their classmates. Wearing a Christian T-shirt gets you thrown out of the mall, the school, the public library, the company picnic. And on and on. 

Indeed, the arrest of Mrs. Vaughn-Spruce provoked a vivid reminder of a similar situation I encountered a few years ago outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.  It was the night before the March for Life and Claire and I were in town with three of our Omaha colleagues for the event.  

But on the night before the March, we had gone to spend a few minutes in prayer outside the U.S. Capitol, the Senate and Congressional offices, and now we were at the Supreme Court.  It was late.  It was very quiet.  There was no one besides the 5 of us on the whole plaza. But just a few seconds into our corporate prayer, one of the Supreme Court police (yes, they’ve got their own) interrupted us and told us that we couldn’t pray there. Though incredulous and angry, I was calm, respectful, and very courteous in my response…as was he. Here’s how it went:

“Officer, thanks for checking on us. But let me ask, did I hear you correctly that we aren’t allowed to pray here?”

“That’s right.”

“Good grief. May I respectfully ask by what authority you make this remarkably un-American demand?”

The Supreme Court policeman was a bit disconcerted.  “Look, I know it doesn’t seem right but they’ve told us not to let crowds gather here or to let anyone do any demonstrating.”

“Officer,” I spoke gently, “are you considering five people a crowd, especially when we’re the only ones in this whole plaza?  And do you really interpret the five of us quietly standing here a demonstration? And I haven’t even mentioned you telling us we can’t pray!”

“I know it doesn’t seem right, sir. But I’m just following orders.”

“Okay, let me ask you this -- when I saw you coming across the plaza, it looked to me like you were already determined to chase us away.  But what if we were simply tourists enjoying the sights of D.C.? Would you have ordered us to leave?”

“No, of course not; that would have been fine.  But I could tell that you were praying by the way you had your heads bowed.”

“Wow; that’s interesting. So, let me get this straight; you’re suggesting that it wasn’t the prayer itself that bothered you. It was seeing us in a posture of prayer.”

“Yes, I guess so.  Because the way you looked, anybody could see that you were praying. And that’s I when I could get in trouble.”

“Got it. But I’ll bet you’ll agree with me that with all the murders and the rapes and the robberies in this city, you’ve got to feel at least a little silly for telling us that praying in this empty place at night is the crime you’re determined to prevent.” He looked kinda’ crestfallen at that and so I followed up quickly, “Look, I’ve got an idea. You and I are not going to settle here tonight the Constitutional legality of our freedom to assembly. And I have no desire to get you or me or any of my friends here in trouble. So, here’s my suggestion.  Why don’t you walk away and leave us alone for another few minutes.  I promise we won’t get on our knees or bow our heads or intertwine our fingers.  We will look just like tourists -- tourists that are simply appreciating the beauty of the Supreme Court lit up at night and thinking about the things it has traditionally stood for…things like, say religious freedom and other stuff!  Then you walk back by here in ten minutes and we will be gone. What do you say?

“I guess that would be okay.  ‘Cause, you know, I don’t want to be a hard-case about all this.  Still, I’m pretty sure that when I walk away, you folks will probably start praying again.”

I smiled.  “But, officer, even if we were so bold to do that, you wouldn’t know.  Nobody would know.  And why? Because you came over here and warned us against assuming a posture of prayer. Mission was accomplished. I promise we won’t do that.  And, like I said, we’ll just be here a few minutes more.  How about it?”

The fellow paused a moment.  “Okay, goodnight, folks.”  He finally walked away and left us to finish our prayers (abstaining from a prayer posture, of course) before we headed back to our hotel. It was a memorable night, for even though we managed to escape penalties for praying in the public square, it was a clear warning of what was coming. And, as I suggested, that incident came back in a rush when I watched the video of Mrs. Vaughn-Spruce’s arrest.  “So, you are praying?  Then you’ll have to come with us.”

My friends, because of the accelerating hatred of the world for God and because the Church has cowardly surrendered so much of her responsibilities to live holy, separated lives as well as to lovingly speak truth into the culture, this is going to keep happening. The powers that be will tell us -- “Sure, it’s fine to have your religion. We will graciously allow that. However, your religion must be a totally private (even secret) thing that finds no expression whatsoever in the public square, the schools, the marketplace, politics, the local library, etc. And, as long as your convictions give way before the ideals (and compulsory orders) of Science, Progress, the State, and the “enlightened elite,” you can feel as many religious feelings as you’d like. ‘Cause, you know, we don’t want to be a hard-case about all this.”  

Lord, have mercy. Help us to hold on tight to a heavenly perspective regarding the trials of living all-out for You. Please be our strength and shield as we pursue godliness in our personal lives and as we undertake the light-bearing responsibilities we have been given as Your ambassadors.

"Why I Am a Republican" (Another Look)

Well worth another look...

R.I.P. Religious Freedom

“So, are you praying?” asked the British policeman to the woman who had been standing quietly across the street from an abortion business in Birmingham.

“Well, I’m not saying anything.  But, yes, I’m praying in my mind.”

“So, you are praying?” the policeman repeated.

“Well, yes.”

“Then you’ll have to come to the station with us, ma’am.”  And he put Isabel Vaughn-Spruce, a local leader of 40 Days for Life, under arrest.

Tragically, denials of what have historically been the sacred freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and conscience are happening more and more as leftist tyrants and their all-too-willing toadies in the press, schools, business, and government bureaucracies ramp up their intolerance of the ideals of Western civilization, Christianity, and Christians.

We have, of course, been dealing with this sad injustice for awhile now. Bakers, innkeepers, and florists are denied the freedoms of religion and conscience. Coaches cannot pray with their teams (no matter how willing the student/athletes are to do so) and valedictorians are not allowed to mention Jesus to their classmates. Wearing a Christian T-shirt gets you thrown out of the mall, the school, the public library, the company picnic. And on and on. 

Indeed, the arrest of Mrs. Vaughn-Spruce provoked a vivid reminder of a similar situation I encountered a few years ago outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.  It was the night before the March for Life and Claire and I were in town with three of our Omaha colleagues for the event.  

But on the night before the March, we had gone to spend a few minutes in prayer outside the U.S. Capitol, the Senate and Congressional offices, and now we were at the Supreme Court.  It was late.  It was very quiet.  There was no one besides the 5 of us on the whole plaza. But just a few seconds into our corporate prayer, one of the Supreme Court police (yes, they’ve got their own) interrupted us and told us that we couldn’t pray there. Though incredulous and angry, I was calm, respectful, and very courteous in my response…as was he. Here’s how it went:

“Officer, thanks for checking on us. But let me ask, did I hear you correctly that we aren’t allowed to pray here?”

“That’s right.”

“Good grief. May I respectfully ask by what authority you make this remarkably un-American demand?”

The Supreme Court policeman was a bit disconcerted.  “Look, I know it doesn’t seem right but they’ve told us not to let crowds gather here or to let anyone do any demonstrating.”

“Officer,” I spoke gently, “are you considering five people a crowd, especially when we’re the only ones in this whole plaza?  And do you really interpret the five of us quietly standing here a demonstration? And I haven’t even mentioned you telling us we can’t pray!”

“I know it doesn’t seem right, sir. But I’m just following orders.”

“Okay, let me ask you this -- when I saw you coming across the plaza, it looked to me like you were already determined to chase us away.  But what if we were simply tourists enjoying the sights of D.C.? Would you have ordered us to leave?”

“No, of course not; that would have been fine.  But I could tell that you were praying by the way you had your heads bowed.”

“Wow; that’s interesting. So, let me get this straight; you’re suggesting that it wasn’t the prayer itself that bothered you. It was seeing us in a posture of prayer.”

“Yes, I guess so.  Because the way you looked, anybody could see that you were praying. And that’s I when I could get in trouble.”

“Got it. But I’ll bet you’ll agree with me that with all the murders and the rapes and the robberies in this city, you’ve got to feel at least a little silly for telling us that praying in this empty place at night is the crime you’re determined to prevent.” He looked kinda’ crestfallen at that and so I followed up quickly, “Look, I’ve got an idea. You and I are not going to settle here tonight the Constitutional legality of our freedom to assembly. And I have no desire to get you or me or any of my friends here in trouble. So, here’s my suggestion.  Why don’t you walk away and leave us alone for another few minutes.  I promise we won’t get on our knees or bow our heads or intertwine our fingers.  We will look just like tourists -- tourists that are simply appreciating the beauty of the Supreme Court lit up at night and thinking about the things it has traditionally stood for…things like, say religious freedom and other stuff!  Then you walk back by here in ten minutes and we will be gone. What do you say?

“I guess that would be okay.  ‘Cause, you know, I don’t want to be a hard-case about all this.  Still, I’m pretty sure that when I walk away, you folks will probably start praying again.”

I smiled.  “But, officer, even if we were so bold to do that, you wouldn’t know.  Nobody would know.  And why? Because you came over here and warned us against assuming a posture of prayer. Mission was accomplished. I promise we won’t do that.  And, like I said, we’ll just be here a few minutes more.  How about it?”

The fellow paused a moment.  “Okay, goodnight, folks.”  He finally walked away and left us to finish our prayers (abstaining from a prayer posture, of course) before we headed back to our hotel. It was a memorable night, for even though we managed to escape penalties for praying in the public square, it was a clear warning of what was coming. And, as I suggested, that incident came back in a rush when I watched the video of Mrs. Vaughn-Spruce’s arrest.  “So, you are praying?  Then you’ll have to come with us.”

My friends, because of the accelerating hatred of the world for God and because the Church has cowardly surrendered so much of her responsibilities to live holy, separated lives as well as to lovingly speak truth into the culture, this is going to keep happening. The powers that be will tell us -- “Sure, it’s fine to have your religion. We will graciously allow that. However, your religion must be a totally private (even secret) thing that finds no expression whatsoever in the public square, the schools, the marketplace, politics, the local library, etc. And, as long as your convictions give way before the ideals (and compulsory orders) of Science, Progress, the State, and the “enlightened elite,” you can feel as many religious feelings as you’d like. ‘Cause, you know, we don’t want to be a hard-case about all this.”  

Lord, have mercy. Help us to hold on tight to a heavenly perspective regarding the trials of living all-out for You. Please be our strength and shield as we pursue godliness in our personal lives and as we undertake the light-bearing responsibilities we have been given as Your ambassadors.

An Important Addendum: A Take from Great Britain

I’ve asked our dear friend and pro-life colleague, Dr. Greg Gardner from Birmingham, to comment on Mrs. Vaughn-Spruce’s arrest and related matters.  His take is of the most profound value – enlightening and challenging and well worth the read.

I’ve been thinking a little about how to put into context the arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce outside the Robert abortion centre in Birmingham for praying silently. It goes back quite a long way. In October 1967 the UK Parliament changed the law on abortion to make it permissible (not legal) to perform an abortion if certain conditions applied. The first abortuary to open its doors in the UK (in 1969) was a place called the ‘Calthorpe Nursing Home’ here in Birmingham. By 2007 it was doing around 10,000 abortions per year and was the largest single abortion provider in the country. The first prayer and pavement counselling that took place outside the Calthorpe was in 1989, kick started by Fr. James Morrow of Scotland. This continued on a weekly basis for many years. The abortion centre was eventually acquired by Marie Stopes International, now known simply as ‘MSI.’ It changed its name from ‘The Calthorpe Nursing Home’ to ‘The Calthorpe Clinic.’ 

Eventually ’40 days for life’ took up the challenge and would have prayer and pavement counselling for 40 days twice per year. Isabel was the local leader for this and was very diligent in organizing rotas, filling in gaps herself, if necessary, despite living a considerable distance away, exhorting people to come out and pray and generally leading from the front. She has been really inspirational. Originally the Calthorpe was open for business 6 days per week, then people began to notice that there would be some days when it would be closed and this happened more frequently. Finally, it closed its doors for good in 2019. This left only one abortion provider in Birmingham called ‘The Robert Clinic’ named after an abortionist. It is owned now by the largest National Abortion Provider called BPAS (The British Pregnancy Advisory Service). 

After the closure of the Calthorpe, 40 days for life turned its attention to The Robert clinic and have had twice yearly prayer vigils there since 2019. These vigils which normally involve two, or maybe three people at most are typically attended by Catholics praying the rosary or other Catholic prayers, punctuated by offers of information to women or couples attending an appointment at the Robert Clinic. Since the place is located in a residential area, with houses adjacent and opposite, the prayer vigil can be seen and sometimes heard by local residents if they are walking past. Some of the residents have been verbally abusive and occasionally violent although others have been supportive. There are now several women who have come out in public saying that their baby was saved from abortion because of the presence of pro-lifers at the Robert Clinic and similar places. Isabel has held in her arms babies saved from abortion at the last minute. False accusations of intimidation have been circulated by local residents and subsequently spread by the local socialist MP.

In response to complaints by local residents and the police who get fed up with having to answer calls (by both sides) the local council in Birmingham decided to launch an online ‘consultation’ (see attached). The local police are funded by the local council so any perceived unnecessary increase in police activity is seen unfavourably. As you can see from the consultation, many of the questions are biased. For example, the question over whether there should be a bubble zone at all was not asked. Rather, it was assumed that they were going ahead with it and the questions were about whether the proposed area was too large/too small etc. I’m also attaching a letter written to local residents by Isabel and some of my responses to the consultation.

I attended a meeting in May with two representatives from the local council along with Isabel, her colleague Ben from ‘March for Life,’ a lawyer called Michael Phillips from the Christian Legal Centre and a local priest. The bias was plain. There was also a public meeting a couple of weeks later where the sentiments of the council representatives were clearly on display. At one point one of their team started to applaud something a resident was saying against ’40 Days for Life’ and then had to stop himself. The local ordinance was duly passed and so prevented any prayer and pavement counselling during the autumn campaign in October and November. There is however a Catholic church about 200 yards away at the other end of the road which is outside the bubble zone so people have been gathering to pray in the car park.

I have previously taken part in previous 40 Days for Life campaigns but decided not to join the latest one and keep a lower profile. One of my colleagues on the abortion/preterm birth paper is concerned that our academic credentials need to be protected so it is important to try to avoid misrepresentation – at least while we are trying to get published.

Since those meetings in the summer, Parliament has gone one stage further and voted for bubble zones outside abortion centres throughout the UK. Numbers of ‘conservative’ MPs also voted for this. Anyone breaching this could end up in jail. You have to ask what is the Conservative Party for since they have not conserved anything for a long time. In this respect they are not conserving free speech and they are not conserving/protecting unborn life or conserving the right of women attending abortion appointments to receive adequate information. The Conservative Party have also imposed abortion on Northern Ireland and introduced same sex ‘marriage’ and now ‘no fault divorce,’ thereby not conserving the status of marriage. Now there is a civil war in The Church of England about whether their clergy can conduct same sex ‘weddings.

Coming back to Isabel I think what she has done is to expose the absurdity and extremism of the bubble zone ordinance if you can be arrested for praying silently on the street (and possibly going to jail). What she has done in reality is committed blasphemy against the religion of secularism which doesn’t tolerate any rival.

Os Guinness has spoken about being against the world for the world’s sake. This is as good a recent example of this as you can find.

Dr. Greg Gardner

The Nursing Home Business: It Shouldn’t Be Mere Business for Christians

The nursing home in your neighborhood is, of course, a business. It is concerned with making money (even if the primary source of that money is from government) and it can only stay in business if it “earns” more than it spends in staff, building maintenance, equipment, supplies, and promotion. However, every senior care business deals uniquely with morality for, besides the issue of profit, it is supposed to provide critical services to many of the most fragile souls in our population.

And may we never grow callous to the fact that the aged, infirm, and severely injured in the human family require not only a lot of help, they also deserve that help to be marked by generosity, kindness, respect, and efficiency. Indeed, they deserve much more from the care facility business (and from all of us too) than they usually get.

Nursing home residents deal with a variety of traumatic problems: pain, fear, disorientation, an infuriating loss of mobility, boredom, frustration, loneliness, depression, a humbling dependence on others, confusion, and a loss of self-esteem that can be as debilitating as any physical burden. And most nursing home residents suffer several of these terribly difficult challenges all at once. 

Are these businesses doing well financially? Certainly so. And more are built every month. However, plainly stated, many of the nursing homes and other senior care businesses are, not serving seniors well. The primary problem? The care facilities are woefully understaffed and ill equipped. The employees there (even when they genuinely care) are undertrained and way underpaid. How terribly common is it then that they are absolutely overwhelmed by the needs of the hurting people in their care. Even with their best efforts, they cannot give quality care to the persons who so desperately need it. And thus the extremely high “burnout” and turnover rates. 

Is the lack of quality, sensitive care to be blamed on the facility staff? No. The responsibility goes to owners and managers and, in some cases, even shareholders. For while it is certainly the case that, along with the peaches on the staff of our nation’s nursing homes, there are also a lot of bad apples. But the foundational fault comes from the top where company profits are more desired than providing quality care. And until senior care businesses are held accountable for the vast differences between what they promise in their brochures and the actual services they provide, the tragedy of the elderly and infirm going without the best of care will continue to get worse.

This will remain the case in the nursing home business until the culture as a whole rediscovers a sincere respect for the sanctity of life. For only a spiritual ethic that values every person (no matter their age, abilities, status, size, color or creed, physical or mental health) as created in the image of God and is therefore of inestimable value and deserving of our most attentive, compassionate, and skilled care can create a culture that is truly humane. Mere sentiment is not enough; what is needed is action of the most committed and consistent kind. 

Sadly, the Church has played an ignoble part in this deterioration of a respect for life. Modern Christians do not honor our parents and grandparents as we should. We have let our insistence on material things, leisure, entertainment, and other freedoms from “the ties that bind” contribute to the breakdown of extended family. We have also let these things determine our priorities in lifestyle, in career choices, in where we spend our money and time. Nothing is left over to invest in caring for the most needy among us.

Consider these questions. Why did the Church abandon its historic stewardship of hospitals, nursing homes, orphanages, adoption agencies, and homes for unwed mothers to the government and government-dependent businesses? It’s a sad legacy. In terms of more organic change, why aren’t Christians in the West producing more nurses, more medical technicians, and other persons willing to take on the challenge of the caring professions? Why in our homes, churches, and Christian schools do we fail to extol the noble professions of caregivers, thus encouraging the generation to come to embrace them as a way to love God, to serve one’s neighbor, and to shine as winsome lights of the gospel in the darkened world around us? After all, the holy Scriptures teach compassion and mercy and sacrifice for others as primary virtues. The Lord Jesus demonstrated over and again the beauty of caring for others (in both their physical and spiritual needs) and He commands us to fully identify with His mission. We are also specifically told that the zenith of authentic Christianity is to make the service of widows and orphans a priority of our ministry. 

More questions. Why does the Church not consider supplementing the meager salaries of caregivers in the senior care facilities so that more Christians could afford to work there? Why do we believe it so important that each of the innumerable churches in a city erect its own expensive building (the space of which is largely wasted during the week) and thus ignore the enormous opportunity to serve the sick, the aged, the unintentional poor and needy around us?  Why do we believe it so necessary that each of the innumerable churches in a city provide salaries and benefits to preachers, assistants of various sorts, and then assistants to the assistants, all the while letting the needs of the widows and orphans in our midst go unmet? 

At the very least, why aren't more of the ministers and laypersons in our churches involved in “mercy ministries” in our town’s nursing homes, hospitals, and with the homebound – ministries like worship services, Bible studies, taking prayers and communion to patients, personal visitation, entertainment, “adopt-a-grandparent” programs, volunteer assistance, and so on?

By the way, my remarks on this topic are not made lightly. Indeed, they come from my wife’s and my own intensive work with seniors: caring for our aged parents, our creation of the popular “When Swing Was King” outreach which has served 8-12 senior facilities every month for 12 years, and to four decades of various other programs of Vital Signs Ministries performed in senior care facilities. And my purpose in writing (yet again) about these matters is 1) because things are not getting better and 2) because I sincerely believe that the Church (even individual believers) could make an enormous difference in the lives of seniors if there is a humble willingness to change our attitudes and ministry strategies, engage in fervent prayers relevant to the need, and begin taking bold, new steps towards helping those who so desperately need our help.

You say that we can’t change the culture’s attitudes, institutions, and moral atrophy overnight? Of course not. We may not, despite our best efforts, change the general culture at all. But that shouldn’t stop us from trying. And it most definitely shouldn’t stop us from taking what action we can right now to help improve the lives of seniors in our immediate area. Let’s get started.

About the Supreme Court’s Latest Decision Against Religious Freedom

Yes, Virginia; that case of Calvary Chapel of Dayton Valley vs the State of Nevada is a VERY big deal.

And to help you come up to speed on the matter, I offer 2 things here. The first is an introduction and link to a Tom Gilson article over at The Stream. And 2) excerpts from the dissents of the injustice, hypocrisy, and remarkable audacity of that Supreme Court decision made by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

Tom Gilson, in an article written for The Stream (an article I post a link to at the end of the quotation), observed, “The Supreme Court could not have said it more clearly than they did last weekend in their Nevada decision: Religious freedom is no longer protected in the United States. Not even the freedom of religious assembly. It was perhaps the last shred of uncontested freedom Christianity has enjoyed here, but now it’s up for grabs.”

https://stream.org/pray-for-persecuted-church-nevada/

However, what is certainly as important is to read the excerpts of the dissents in that horrific Supreme Court decision last week from Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. (Justice Thomas joined the dissent but did not write a separate opinion.)

I post a few of the comments from those dissents immediately below:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 19A1070
CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY
v. STEVE SISOLAK, GOVERNOR OF NEVADA, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[July 24, 2020]

The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is denied.

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH join, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief.

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance. But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities. Claiming virtually unbounded power to restrict constitutional rights during the COVID–19 pandemic, he has issued a directive that severely limits attendance at religious services. A church, synagogue, or mosque, regardless of its size, may not admit more than 50 persons, but casinos and certain other favored facilities may admit 50% of their maximum occupancy -- and in the case of gigantic Las Vegas casinos, this means that thousands of patrons are allowed. That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing. We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility...

For months now, States and their subdivisions have responded to the pandemic by imposing unprecedented restrictions on personal liberty, including the free exercise of religion. This initial response was understandable...But a public health emergency does not give Governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists...

For Las Vegas casinos, 50% capacity often means thousands of patrons, and the activities that occur in casinos frequently involve far less physical distancing and other safety measures than the worship services that Calvary Chapel proposes to conduct. Patrons at a craps or blackjack table do not customarily stay six feet apart. Casinos are permitted to serve alcohol, which is well known to induce risk taking, and drinking generally requires at least the temporary removal of masks. Casinos attract patrons from all over the country. In anticipation of reopening, one casino owner gave away 2,000 one-way airline tickets to Las Vegas. And when the Governor announced that casinos would be permitted to reopen, he invited visitors to come to the State. The average visitor to Las Vegas visits more than six different casinos, potentially gathering with far more than 50 persons in each one. Visitors to Las Vegas who gamble do so for more than two hours per day on average and gamblers in a casino often move from one spot to another, trying their luck at different games or at least at different slot machines. Houses of worship can -- and have -- adopted rules that provide far more protection...

The idea that allowing Calvary Chapel to admit 90 worshippers presents a greater public health risk than allowing casinos to operate at 50% capacity is hard to swallow, and the State’s efforts to justify the discrimination are feeble...

Moreover, even if the State’s special regulatory power over casinos could justify different rules for those facilities, the State would still have no explanation why facilities like bowling alleys, arcades, and fitness centers are also given the benefit of the 50% rule. And while the State suggests that it strictly enforces the rules applicable to casinos, photos and videos taken in casinos after they were allowed to reopen show widespread and blatant safety violations...

In sum, the directive blatantly discriminates against houses of worship and thus warrants strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.

The directive fares no better under the Free Speech Clause...

Compare the directive’s treatment of casino entertainment and church services. Both involve expression, but the directive favors the secular expression in casino shows over the religious expression in houses of worship. Calvary Chapel has also brought to our attention evidence that the Governor has favored certain speakers over others. When large numbers of protesters openly violated provisions of the Directive, such as the rule against groups of more than 50 people, the Governor not only declined to enforce the directive but publicly supported and participated in a protest. He even shared a video of protesters standing shoulder to shoulder. The State’s response to news that churches might violate the directive was quite different. The attorney general of Nevada is reported to have said, “‘You can’t spit . . . in the face of law and not expect law to respond.’” Public protests, of course, are themselves protected by the First Amendment, and any efforts to restrict them would be subject to judicial review. But respecting some First Amendment rights is not a shield for violating others. The State defends the Governor on the ground that the protests expressed a viewpoint on important issues, and that is undoubtedly true, but favoring one viewpoint over others is anathema to the First Amendment...


JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief.

This is a simple case. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10- screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers -- no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesar’s Palace over Calvary Chapel.


JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief.

I join JUSTICE ALITO’s dissent in full and respectfully add these further comments...

The risk of COVID–19 transmission is at least as high at restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms as it is at religious services. Indeed, people congregating in restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms often linger at least as long as they do at religious services. And given the safety measures that Calvary Chapel and other places of worship are following -- including social distancing, mask wearing, and certain additional voluntary measures -- it is evident that people interact with others at restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms at least as closely as they do at religious services. In my view, Nevada’s discrimination against religious services violates the Constitution.

To be clear, a State’s closing or reopening plan may subject religious organizations to the same limits as secular organizations. And in light of the devastating COVID–19 pandemic, those limits may be very strict. But a State may not impose strict limits on places of worship and looser limits on restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms, at least without sufficient justification for the differential treatment of religion. As I will explain, Nevada has thus far failed to provide a sufficient justification, and its current reopening plan therefore violates the First Amendment..

Fourth are laws -- like Nevada’s in this case—that supply no criteria for government benefits or action, but rather divvy up organizations into a favored or exempt category and a disfavored or non-exempt category. Those laws provide benefits only to organizations in the favored or exempt category and not to organizations in the disfavored or nonexempt category...

To be clear, the Court’s precedents do not require that religious organizations be treated more favorably than all secular organizations. Rather, the First Amendment requires that religious organizations be treated equally to the favored or exempt secular organizations, unless the State can sufficiently justify the differentiation...

I turn then to analyzing Nevada’s rules under the Court’s precedents. As JUSTICE ALITO explains in his dissent, Nevada has now had more than four months to respond to the initial COVID–19 crisis and adjust its line-drawing as circumstances change. Yet Nevada is still discriminating against religion. Nevada applies a strict 50-person attendance cap to religious worship services, but applies a looser 50% occupancy cap to secular organizations like restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms. Nevada has gestured at two possible justifications for that discrimination: public health and the economy. But
neither argument is persuasive on this record..

The State has not explained why a 50% occupancy cap is good enough for secular businesses where people congregate in large groups or remain in close proximity for extended periods—such as at restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms -- but is not good enough for places of worship. Again, it does not suffice to point out that some secular businesses, such as movie theaters, are subject to the lesser of a 50-person or 50% occupancy cap. The legal question is not whether religious worship services are all alone in a disfavored category, but why they are in the disfavored category to begin with. And Nevada has not advanced a sufficient public health rationale for that decision. To reiterate, the State has substantial room to draw lines, especially in an emergency or crisis. But Nevada has not demonstrated that public health justifies taking a looser approach with restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms and a stricter approach with places of worship...

More broadly, the State insists that it is in the midst of an emergency and that it should receive deference from the courts and not be bogged down in litigation. If the courts simply enforce the constitutional prohibition against religious discrimination, however, the floodgates will not open...

But COVID–19 is not a blank check for a State to discriminate against religious people, religious organizations, and religious services. There are certain constitutional red lines that a State may not cross even in a crisis. Those red lines include racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and content-based suppression of speech. This Court’s history is littered with unfortunate examples of overly broad judicial deference to the government when the government has invoked emergency powers and asserted crisis circumstances to override equal-treatment and free-speech principles. The court of history has rejected those jurisprudential mistakes and cautions us against an unduly deferential judicial approach, especially when questions of racial discrimination, religious discrimination, or free speech are at stake...

The Constitution “protects religious observers against unequal treatment.”…Nevada’s 50-person attendance cap on religious worship services puts praying at churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques on worse footing than eating at restaurants, drinking at bars, gambling at casinos, or biking at gyms. In other words, Nevada is discriminating against religion. And because the State has not offered a sufficient justification for doing so, that discrimination violates the First Amendment.

A Letter to the President

I'm wrote this quick letter to the U.S. President early this morning over a coffee at Paradise cafe. Claire has typed it up nicely and it's already on its way. However, I'm posting it as an "open letter" in hopes that it might motivate you to follow with a letter of your own.
What do you say?

Dear President Trump,

I write you this morning to very briefly comment on ten items relating to your service to our nation (and indeed, the cause of freedom around the world).

1) We are praying for you every day.  We pray for protection, strength, wisdom from God, and success in all of your endeavors.

2) We are deeply grateful for your bold, compassionate, and just promotion of the sanctity of all human life.  We especially applaud your actions against the mega-abortion corporation that is Planned Parenthood.

3) We urge you to move even stronger against the very real threat of voter fraud.

4) You have served America’s interests well in standing up to the World Health Organization, the United Nations, the Democrats in Congress, the irrational and enraged media, and the corruption of the Deep State.  Many, many thanks. Stay the course.

5) We appreciate your moves to contain the China Virus AND to open the country as soon as possible to reduce the horrific effects of the quarantines, shutdowns, and fear.

6) We also appreciate your spirited defense of the citizens’ freedom of speech and freedom of religion against the dangerously stifling censorship of giant monopolistic companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook.  Press that fight all the way, please.

7) Speaking of Twitter, please be more prudent and winsome in this arena. It is the one area in which your genuine friends find irksome and counter-productive.  But, believe me, it's the only area where your genuine friends want you to ease off a bit. Everywhere else...full steam ahead!

8) You have worked hard and skillfully to bring back America’s military strength and its economy.  Thank you too for standing strong with Israel and other trustworthy U.S. allies even as you refuse to be cowed by the antics of the downward-spiraling, socialist-dominated nations of Europe.

9) Thank you for pursuing so diligently the appointments of judges who have clear records of respecting, preserving, and applying the U.S. Constitution as it was intended by its original writers.

And 10)  Please pass on to Melania our heartiest thanks for the excellent, inspirational, and kind-hearted leadership she has shown.  The United States has never been blessed with a lovelier, more modest, more gracious First Lady.

Sincerely,

Denny & Claire Hartford
Omaha, Nebraska

The Democrat Party: A Little Bit of History

https://www.prageru.com/video/the-inconvenient-truth-about-the-democratic-party/

Green with Envy: The Best Articles on the Democrats' "Green New Deal"

* “The 10 Most Insane Requirements Of The Green New Deal: The Green New Deal isn't just un-American, it's also completely bonkers.” (David Harsanyi, Federalist)

* “Green New Deal Backers Embrace Their Fantasies” (Jonah Goldberg, National Review via Town Hall)

* “‘New Green Deal’ = New Green Hoax” (Tammy Bruce, Washington Post via Fox News)

* “The Same Old Deal” (The Editors at National Review)

* “Green New Deal Would Barely Change Earth’s Temperature. Here Are the Facts.” (Nicolas Loris, Daily Signal)

* “The Green Raw Deal” (Erick Erickson, Town Hall)

Keeping Posted (Part Two)

* “As employees speak out, Planned Parenthood’s mask begins to crack” (Carole Novielli, Live Action)

* “Millennial Socialism 101” (Rich Lowry, National Review)

* “Millennial Christians Are Often Wrong about Patriotism” (Ben Palka, Providence)

* “Imagine Nations Were Selfless — It’s No Paradise” (Brad Littlejohn, Providence)

* “The Trump ‘Resistance’: Right-Wing Racists Bad, Left-Wing Racists Not So Much” (Larry Elder, Town Hall)

* “Heathens hold religious services rooted in Norse paganism aboard aircraft carrier” (J.D. Simkins, Navy Times)

* “You Can’t Make This Up: A Speech Code that Investigates Students for Discussing the Freedom of Speech” (Ilya Shapiro & Patrick Moran, Cato Institute)

* “Anniversary of a Fake News Classic by The New York Times” (Humberto Fontova, Town Hall)

From the Latest Letter-Writing Party

During last night’s letter-writing party, 8 of us managed to knock out 50 letters and cards. They included (depending, of course, on the person, agency, or business thus addressed) letters of advocacy, gratitude, encouragement, and principled protest. For instance, notes were sent out to pro-life colleagues like the terrific team who minister to moms and babies through Assure Women’s Center; Lincoln sidewalk counselor heroine, Pam McCabe; and others. Several letters went to political leaders dealing with pro-life and pro-family issues. Others were sent to the President, Cabinet members, the State Department, military officials, and foreign ambassadors regarding recent examples of egregious religious persecution.

Here’s a quick sampling of the notes that I sent out.

Dear Ambassador Haley,

My, my, my!  What a breath of fresh air you are at the United Nations!  And what an example of rationality, character, and class you have brought to the job. Thank you for your wisdom and courage and grace.  You are in our frequent and fervent prayers.

Dear Senator Sasse,

Jonathan Edwards once wrote, “Resolution One: I will live for God.  Resolution Two: If no one else does, I still will.” We are praying that these resolutions will be hallmarks of your tenure in the U. S. Senate.  And thank you for the evidence to date that this is the case.

You are in our frequent prayers — especially for your leadership in promoting the sanctity of life, religious freedom, and free speech.

Dear Netflix,

Our recent consideration of signing on with Netflix was abruptly ended when we learned of the latest teen suicide related to your horrendously violent (and vile) series “13 Reasons Why.”

Please cancel this wildly irresponsible television series immediately.

Dear Judge Kavanaugh,

Just a quick note from a few of the Nebraskans who are praying for you and your brave family during these difficult days – days in which you have had to endure such injustice, vile character assassination, and undeserved anxiety and pain.  God help our nation when the primary principles of justice and civility and truth are so deplorably trashed.  Thank you – and your family – for handling this intense trial with such grace and calm.  Your example is a beacon in a dark culture!

Planned Parenthood: Why Hasn't the #MeToo Movement Looked Here?

This is just the opening salvo in a provocative, enlightening, justice-oriented effort by Live Action regarding Planned Parenthood's long, sordid history of enabling sex abusers. Watch the brief video below and then, for more of the facts, check out what Live Action has provided in print and video reports right here.

Tired of Social Media Censoring What You See?

With the evidence piling up that Facebook, Twitter, and other “social media” giants are grievously, systematically, and unapologetically censoring conservative voices, I suggest we stop depending on them for important news and commentary. Instead, let’s go back about 15 or 20 years and remember when the alternative media first began to utilize the remarkable freedom of blogs and other conservative news and opinion sites on the internet.

Oh, yes; Rush Limbaugh had been holding down the fort on the airwaves and Fox News was providing a bit of a respite from the monopoly of leftist television reporting. But it was Lucianne.com, Drudge Report, City Journal, Power Line, Breitbart, and a whole host of terrific blogs that helped conservative citizens find credible, helpful information to wage the culture wars.

Well, ever since I started Vital Signs Blog in 2005, I have tried to provide occasional listings of the “best from the blogs.” And yet I believe the need for that kind of service is greater than ever. Therefore, I’m actually stepping it up.

Every few days I will list links to some of the most important articles I’ve found dealing with the culture wars, sanctity of life, religious freedom, and so on. I invite you to frequently check in here at Vital Signs Blog, find those compilation posts, and then read the articles that you find of greatest interest.

And please don't wait until you see the Facebook link to that Vital Signs Blog post...because there's a good chance you wouldn't find that link on Facebook in the first place. No, skip the middleman altogether and head go directly to Vital Signs Blog every few days for those compilation posts. (You may find a few other posts there of interest too.)

We need not allow Facebook and Twitter and the others to control what we see.

And, by the way, right here is the latest of these compilations.

An Old Idea is New Again (But It's Still a Bad Idea)

Inez Feltscher Stepman, Director of the Education and Workforce Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council and a senior contributor to The Federalist, comments on the new popularity of an old (and very bad) idea; namely, socialism.

"Earlier this week, The Washington Post ran an article by Elizabeth Bruenig titled ‘It’s Time to Give Socialism a Try,’ in which she argues that the current flailings of liberal democracy should be replaced with socialism. Although the author stridently and probably sincerely denies being a “totalitarian nostalgist,” the reality is that socialism requires totalitarianism. A system so incompatible with human nature cannot exist without an increasingly-ruthless enforcement mechanism. And as we see with the rising illiberal left in America, nice-sounding ideas quickly turn into demands, and demands into law, backed by the full force of government.

Not to get too personal here, but this kind of ‘let’s try it again’ rhetoric really chaps my behind. Both of my parents grew up under the communist regime in Poland, and my grandfather logged time in a Siberian gulag. They came to the United States seeking a freer life, not to hear more of the same old siren song.

There’s nothing romantic about life under socialism or communism. We know where rhapsodizing about socialism leads. It’s not new, and the Post and the New York Times shouldn’t treat it like the trendy flavor of the month.”  (Inez Feltscher Stepman at Bright, an email update provided by The Federalist)

The Scandal of Grade Inflation. It's Even Worse Than You Think.

“A professor at the University of Georgia has adopted a policy that puts a premium on stress reduction.  Hoping to avoid the ‘profound consequences’ of stressful situations, he has set out a policy that includes all tests being open-book, and designed to be completed in half the time allowed.  Those exams will be designed to assess a ‘low level mastery of the course material.’  If students are unduly stressed by a grade, they may contact the instructor and indicated the grade the student considers ‘appropriate, and it will be changed.’ 

There are more provisions in the policy, to prevent  those profound consequences of stress, including only positive comments made in class about presentations.  The professor acknowledges that the policy ‘might hinder the development of group skills and mastery of the class material,’ but ‘ultimately these are your responsibility.’

How did Chesterton put it?  ‘Standardization by a low standard.’”
(Mark Pilon, Gilbert Magazine)

Solzhenitsyn on America's “Decline in Courage”

With the momentous happenings of last week; particularly the straightforward long overdue speech of President Trump to the United Nations, followed by the latest cave in of Washington politicians to Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, the leftist media, and even the rants of unhinged dictators in North Korea and Iran,  I recalled a particularly relevant  passage from Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s commencement speech at Harvard in 1978.

“A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course, there are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.

Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity, and perplexity in their actions and in their statements, and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable, as well as intellectually and even morally worn it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and with countries not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

Should one point out that from ancient times declining courage has been considered the beginning of the end?”

The “Back to School” Agenda You’re Ignoring

“I am convinced that the battle for human­kind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. There teachers must embody the same selfless dedication of the most rabid fundamentalist preacher, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey hu­manist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level -- pre­school, daycare, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved."

(John Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist magazine, 1983. Quoted in God's Prophetic Voice to America by Dr. David R. Reagan)

Notes from Dennis Prager’s Omaha Talk

Thursday morning Claire and I joined Pat Osborne, John Malek, Quint & Carol Coppi, Jim & Jeanne Lawson (and another 150 or so conservatives) for a breakfast talk by columnist and radio broadcaster, Dennis Prager.  Sponsored by The Answer Omaha Radio and held at the Hotel RL, the event seemed to be a success on several levels. Kudos to 1420 AM.

Dennis Prager was certainly in fine form Thursday morning and his observations and exhortations regarding the culture wars were enthusiastically received by the audience. Want a few highlights of his talk? Well, I transcribe below some of the notes I took on the back of a bank envelope.

* Prager reminded us that he opposed Donald Trump’s nomination throughout the primaries. However, he supported Trump enthusiastically in the general election although frequently he presented the choice between Clinton and Trump to something like the choice of two doors. Behind one of them, you were guaranteed, was a man-eating lion while, behind the other, there only might be a man-eating lion. People of moral values thus had a clear choice for Donald Trump. That being said, Prager told the audience that he “is amazed at the great job Trump has done” so far.

* "The modern university is a wisdom-free institution."

* The left does not represent liberalism.  Indeed, the modern left is decidedly anti-liberal.  Examples?  Think of the ideals of Harry Truman, John Kennedy, or Henry Jackson (patriotism, optimism, strong national defense, freedom of speech, opposition to big government and government handouts, traditional moral values, etc.) vs. the whining, value-free authoritarianism of Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi.

* The left is actively, purposefully undermining the ideals of Western civilization.

* America’s historic trinity of ideals?  Liberty.  In God We Trust.  E pluribus unum.

* The left represents the legacy of the French Revolution – godless, intolerant, and violent.  It demands equality by denying liberty and justice.

* The Democrats are now all the same.  Republican candidates (at every level) must run against the Democrat Party and its positions and tactics.

* “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”  (Proverbs 9:10)

* The question, not merely to ponder, but to excite action on our part should be, “How American is America going to be?”

* The left is, by valuing everything according to race and class, is proving itself racist and elitist.

* “Hysteria is to the left what oxygen is to biological life.”

* Canada is already lost.  So is Europe.  Are we next to fall, the last great hope on earth for freedom?

* The left does not hate evil.  They hate carbon emissions and pro-life advocates and Israel and conservative speakers on college campuses…but they don’t hate evil.

* “The university, at least for students in the humanities and social sciences, is a fraud.”

* A key problem in America? The grandchildren of Jews and Christians do not know Judaism or Christianity.

* The problem with Congress is democracy -- for voters today are addicted to government handouts.  Today’s Democrats do not, as did JFK, put the interests of the nation before the wants of the individual.  No, they literally pay for votes by promising more and more free benefits to voters.

Key Reads for Your Weekend

* “France Passes Law to Put Operators of Pro-Life Web Sites in Prison for Two Years” (Micaiah Bilger, LifeNews.com)

* “Break the Bureaucracy! An agenda for rolling back the administrative state” (Adam White, City Journal)

* “I disapprove of what you say – and will make darned sure you can’t say it” (Chiara Bertoglio, Mercator)

* “Schools are Teaching Islam but Banning Christianity: These Jersey Moms Want to Find Out Why” (Nancy Flory, The Stream)

* “Despite the Hysteria, Trump Is Trending Less Authoritarian Than Obama” (David French, National Review)

* “Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ Salary Has Gone Up a Whopping 265% to Almost $1 Million” (Ryan Bomberger, LifeNews.com)

* “One very good reason why Americans distrust scientists” (Michael Cook, Mercator)

* “U of Mich students demand no-whites-allowed space to plot ‘social justice’ activism” (Mason Clark, The College Fix)

* “This ‘Roe’ Obituary Should Make Pro-Choicers Rethink Their Loyalty” (Stephen Herreid, The Stream)

Ringing in the New Year

* “Suggestions For Liberals in 2017” (Susan Stamper Brown, Town Hall)

* “It’s Still a Mad, Mad California” (Victor Davis Hanson, National Review)

* “In Europe and the US, Elites Who Live by Lies Despise the Little People Who Don’t” (John Zmirak, The Stream)

* “Obamacare Repeal Must Be on Day One: Congress Has No Excuses” (Jim DeMint, Daily Signal)

* “Russians! Under my bed!” (Glenn Reynolds, USA Today)

* “John Kerry’s practiced betrayal of friends” (Wes Pruden, Washington Times)

* “Conspiracy Theorists: Poll Shows Majority of Democrats Falsely Believe Russia Hacked Election Results” (Guy Benson, Town Hall)

* “2016's Biggest Loser — Big Green” (Stephen Moore, Investor’s Business Daily)

A Little Post-Christmas Light

* “Islamists Attack Christmas, but Europeans Abolish It” (Giulio Meotti, Gatestone Institute)

* “‘Islamist Terrorists Continually Slaughter Christians’: Trump Says What Obama Refused to Say” (Michael Brown, The Stream)

* “Obama’s Betrayal of Israel Is a Black Day for American Diplomacy” (Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review)

* “Obama Leaves Another Hot Mess” (Jonah Goldberg, National Review)

* “U.S. Should Not Only Defund U.N. But Withdraw From It” (Daniel Greenfield, Front Page Mag)

* “A Problem From Hell, Indeed” (Editorial, The New York Sun)

* “Texas to Defund Planned Parenthood” (Amanda Prestigiacomo, Daily Wire)

* “Professor tweets ‘all I want for Christmas is white genocide’” (Thomas Lifson, American Thinker)

* “Is Trump Becoming a Conservative?” (John Hinderaker, Power Line)

* “The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart” (Dan Mitchell, The Stream)