The Patriot Post® · Solid Platform Shoes for GOP in Cleveland

For those looking for conflict in Cleveland at the 2016 GOP Convention — they may be a bit disappointed. The contested convention that was talked about did not materialize, nor is a battle royal developing over the party’s platform. After the first full day of working on the platform, it appears the GOP is set to have another solidly conservative statement of principles that draws sharp lines of contrast with the Democratic Party.

I once again have the privilege of serving as Louisiana’s male delegate on the platform committee. I am grateful to the Republican voters of Louisiana and the leadership of the state party for giving me the opportunity to help craft the GOP guiding document that will hopefully shape and direct the party’s work over the next four years. I am also fortunate to have a great team of policy personnel from FRC Action on the ground here in Cleveland working in coalition with other conservative groups and delegates to ensure the party’s platform remains a solidly conservative document.

Four years ago, our efforts helped lead to the adoption of a pro-life, pro-family platform. Because of the current conservative RNC leadership, we started our work here in Cleveland with the framework of a solid conservative platform. Most of the modifications made Monday to the draft platform addressed the recent challenges created under the Obama administration. For example, the pro-life plank was strengthened with language calling for the removal of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. The marriage plank was strengthened with language explaining why children deserve a mom and dad. Religious liberty text was added protecting businesses and military service members. I also took the opportunity to successfully introduce an amendment to address the events in Dallas and my home town of Baton Rouge stating that “the next president must cease sowing seeds of division and distrust between the police and the people they have sworn to serve and protect. The Republican Party, a party of law and order, must make clear in both words and actions that every human life matters.”

We are also pleased that the party is now on record standing with the 23 states that are suing President Obama over his bathroom & locker room edict. These amendments were overwhelmingly adopted. There were a handful of LGBT activists and sympathizers who opposed language highlighting the privacy and safety concerns related to the president’s locker room decrees as well as the party’s clearly stated view that natural marriage is the cornerstone of society. Some in the media attempted to seize on this as evidence of a divided party. Far from it. My prediction is that Republicans will leave Cleveland with a solid platform and will unite around the party’s nominee for the purpose of saving America for the next generation and beyond.

Originally published here.

A Glaring Commission in Iowa

Did the Last Supper qualify as a religious event? What about the feeding of the five thousand? From Genesis to Revelation some of the most significant events of scripture happened not in a sanctuary but rather around a supper table. Following that example today would be problematic for Christians in Iowa where a government commission is now deciding what church activities qualify as “religious” and which ones don’t, placing those activities under the power of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC).

In 2007, Iowa’s Civil Rights Act was amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) as protected classes. The law gives broad powers of enforcement to the ICRC, which quietly released a brochure in 2008 offering guidance on how the SOGI aspects of the law would be treated. It loosely covers issues like bathroom and locker room policies, stating that individuals were permitted to use restrooms or locker rooms, “…in accordance with their gender identity, rather than their assigned sex at birth, without being harassed or questioned.” Another section of the brochure dealt with the application of the law to churches:

Does this law apply to churches?

Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public). [ Emphasis added]

It doesn’t take a law degree to see how the application of this law can be a threat to religious liberty. I don’t know about you, but most church services I have attended were open to the public. A church that closes its doors to the public is quickly on its way to closing its doors permanently — and whether or not that’s the intent of the Iowa law, that would be the effect if the law was enforced. Churches which do not comply would be subject to damages, potentially forcing them to close their doors if they continually refused to accede to the state’s demands over biblical truth. What constitutes a “bona fide religious purpose?” That will apparently be decided at the discretion of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.

To date, the law has not been enforced against a church, but our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom weren’t about to sit around and wait for it to happen. Last week ADF launched a pre-emptive lawsuit on behalf of an Iowa church against the SOGI facility-use provisions. Another Iowa church sent a demand letter through First Liberty Institute, urging the commission to promise not to enforce the law against churches.

As this dangerous policy started gaining attention, the ICRC revised the brochure’s section on churches. The updated brochure now reads like this:

Places of Worship

Places of worship (e.g. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) are generally exempt from the Iowa law’s prohibition of discrimination, unless the place of worship engages in non-religious activities which are open to the public. For example, the law may apply to an independent day care or polling place located on the premises of the place of worship.

The language has been slightly modified to remove “church services open to the public” as being subject to the regulation, but what remains is still vague and alarming. What constitutes “non-religious activities,” and who decides what those are? What about a church softball league? What about churches that allow the use of their auditoriums for local high-school graduation ceremonies? What about the church that hosts a barbeque cook-off for the community on its grounds? Though the church may see the activity as an outreach to the community, the ICRC has the power to determine whether or not the activity is religious or not. Thankfully, ADF is forging ahead with its preemptive lawsuit, saying that, “the change in the brochure doesn’t fix the inherent problem with the Civil Rights Act that forms the basis of the lawsuit-that the act gives the commission power to determine what parts of a church’s activities do not have a ‘bona fide religious purpose’ and are thereby subject to the act’s prohibitions.”

This is not religious freedom, and if laws like this are allowed to stand in places like Iowa, then it’s only a matter of time before Americans everywhere are going to have government bureaucracies telling them what they can and can’t do within their churches. Iowans need to know that the ICRC is a big problem, but even worse are the legislators who made this legislative change to begin with. Those changes should be repealed to fully protect religious freedom.

Originally published here.

The High Cost of a Free Lunch

This political season has showcased a curious phenomenon: socialism is apparently alive and well in the minds of millions of voters. With the promise of a fundamental transformation of America by a major political candidate, the popularity of socialism seems to be at an all-time high, especially among millennials who love the idea of free government-funded healthcare and college tuition. But what are the real-world consequences of a socialist form of government? Former Ohio Congressman Bob McEwen recently delivered an energetic reality-check at Family Research Council in a lecture about the true economic consequences of socialism and the benefits of free enterprise.

Beyond the hype of “wealth redistribution” lies a cold, hard economic fact: the greater the freedom of a country, the greater its wealth; the greater a country’s government, the greater its poverty. In example after example around the globe, McEwen points out that the world’s most prosperous nations with the largest economies are those who afford their citizens the most personal freedoms. Why? Because personal freedom is paramount in a successful system of free enterprise in which citizens are free to make their own choices with regard to quality and price.

In our current political climate, McEwen shows why it is increasingly vital that we understand socialism’s foundational philosophies so we can combat this fatally flawed government solution to a human problem. Watch the full lecture on-demand here.

Originally published here.