Alliance Defense Fund

Alliance Defense Fund

Founded by a group of high-profile Religious Right leaders such as D. James Kennedy and James Dobson, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) sees itself as a counter to the ACLU. As a legal group, it assists and augments the efforts of other right-wing groups to "keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel." The ADF has been active on issues including pushing "marriage protection," exposing the "homosexual agenda" and fighting the supposed "war on Christmas."

PFAW
Filed under:

After 9th Circuit Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional, Marriage Equality Opponents Look to the Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal victory:

Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 and—for the first time ever—finding a "right" to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!

This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop. But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.

NOM also posted additional statements from Brown and board chairman John Eastman, who called it an “absurd ruling”:

“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”

“Never before has a federal appeals court – or any federal court for that matter – found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution,” said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling.”

The Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Brian Raum dubbed the ruling a “Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage”:

No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people. Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.

We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage–tried in San Francisco–turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court. Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

Catholics for the Common Good president William May derided the court for failing to “to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society”:

"It is outrageous that judges continue to disregard the will of 7 million voters who voted to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society," May said.

Federal District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presided over a show trial about marriage in which plaintiff's counsel trotted out witness after witness with emotional arguments in a PR attempt to re-argue Proposition 8.

"Failing to disclose that the judge himself was similarly situated as the plaintiffs (in a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner), Walker could find no rational reason for the voters to define marriage between a man and a woman and concluded they were bigoted and discriminatory," said May.

"To reach his judgment about the voters and his decision to strike down Prop 8, he created a new definition of marriage as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the benefit of adults. However, the voters of California know that marriage is much more than that. It is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. This is what marriage is; that is what it does. It is a reality that can only be recognized by law and never changed."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused the court of “judicial tyranny” and trying to “impose San Francisco values on the entire country”:

"Today's decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country. This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens.

"This ruling substitute's judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.

"Voters in 31 states have voted to uphold the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine, a majority of American states, have actually inserted such a definition into the text of their state constitutions," concluded Perkins.

Focus on the Family analyst Bruce Hausknecht called the ruling “yet another instance of social engineering”:

“Opponents of Prop 8 insist on changing the definition of marriage for everyone, including children who deserve the opportunity to grow up in a home with their own married mother and father," Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family, said in a statement after the ruling.

“But no judge has the right to redefine marriage," he continued. "Doing so redefines parenthood, and offers yet another instance of social engineering based on the desires of adults rather than the interests of children."

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance asserted that the judges “undermined the foundations of the family and liberty”:

Once again, the Ninth Circuit lives up to its reputation as the most overturned court in the country. Only this time, they have reached a new low. They not only showed a complete disregard for the Constitution, but also for those principles and values that gave birth to it, and for "we the people" who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.

Californians voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage that has been the foundation of this great nation. Our experiences have shown us, as science proves, that the best environment for children to develop as productive members of our society is in a home where there is a mother and a father who love them and each other unconditionally. Yet with a stroke of the pen these three judges have undermined the foundations of the family and liberty.

Shame on them.

We know this issue will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court and we hope, for the sake of our country's future, that they will show much more respect for the Constitution, our foundations and the people who give them the right to make these rulings in the first place.

UPDATE: The Capitol Resource Institute blasted the ruling as “a stunning assault on democracy”:

"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition 8.

"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher, now with the Culture War Victory Fund, writes on National Review Online that the ruling represents a “breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic”:

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

Gordon Klingenschmitt said that the “Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves” as a result of the ruling:

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced today that the Founding Fathers wrote homosexual 'marriage' rights into the U.S. Constitution, and overturned California's Proposition 8 traditional marriage law, which had twice been passed by voters. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, since all of them believed sodomy was a crime, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver claimed the ruling “undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system” and represents the “unraveling of the actual judiciary”:

"This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. This is, I think, an illustration of why the judiciary has lost the confidence of the American people."

"If you look at ideology ... pushed by this particular panel, obviously that's what this panel did: they looked at their own ideological bias, their radical positions -- not the Constitution itself. And when they did that, it undermined their own legitimacy -- and I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny."

"They're not only saying that the voters don't have the right to amend their own constitution and define marriage, they're also saying that there is a constitutional, guaranteed right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution itself. That's absolutely absurd. It is insane to suggest that there is such a right in the United States Constitution."

The Family Leader dubbed the court a “friend of the radical homosexual agenda” and referred to the ruling as a case of bullying:

Today's decision by the liberal 9th Circut Court, while expected, is sad and outrageous on many levels. Not least of which is "we the people" get bullied again by a few "robed masters." It's also evidence that when executives go wobbly on fighting the left's agenda and not appointing ONLY strict constructionist judges, who take the Constitution and due process seriously, we continue to lose these battles. However, the 9th Circuit's opinon is no surprise; they have been a friend of the radical homosexual agenda for years. As for us; we have only begun to and will continue to be in the fight! Join us!

Gary Bauer of American Values chided the “Circus” Court for attempting to “force its radical agenda down our throats” and “threatening religious liberty”:

The Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals has struck again. Today, a divided three-judge panel overruled the majority of California voters and struck down Proposition 8 — the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The court’s majority ruled that traditional marriage “fails to advance any rational basis.” So in spite of thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the values held by every major faith, in spite of basic biology and common sense and in spite of the will of the people, these left-wing judicial ideologues believe that normal marriage is irrational.

Here’s the bottom line: The culture war is real. The left does not intend to allow these issues to be decided by the people in their respective states. It will use the courts to force its radical agenda down our throats.

This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to be informed and active in the public policy debates of our time. These decisions are redefining our cherished values and threatening religious liberty.

PFAW

Alliance Defense Fund Stokes Anti-Gay Fears in Alaska, Quickly Debunked by Alaskans

The Religious Right legal advocacy group the Alliance Defense Fund is working with the far-right Alaska Family Council to fight an anti-discrimination ordinance in Anchorage, Alaska, because it will protect people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. The Arizona-based ADF has made it its mission to fighting against gay rights in the courts, and its president Alan Sears earlier claimed that “no compromise is possible” with “the homosexual agenda.”

The Anchorage Daily News reports that ADF lawyer Holly Carmichael is telling Anchorage voters that religious liberty would be threatened by the initiative, but local religious groups and Anchorage employment lawyer Thomas Daniel interviewed say that the ADF isn’t telling the truth as the ordinance plainly does not affect existing religious exemptions:

A national conservative Christian legal group says the gay rights initiative on Anchorage's April 3 city election ballot, coupled with existing Anchorage discrimination law, undercuts religious liberty.

But a well-known Anchorage employment lawyer, Thomas Daniel, says he doesn't think the initiative impinges on freedom for religious groups at all.

The initiative up for public vote would extend legal protections against discrimination to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in Anchorage. Current law already prohibits discrimination in employment, loans, rentals, real estate deals and other activities on the basis of race, color, marital status, sex, religion, disabilities and the like. The initiative would add sexual orientation and transgender identity to the list.

The main problem as the Alliance Defense Fund sees it is that private business owners could be forced to hire or do business with people whose sexual orientation doesn't match their religious beliefs, said Holly Carmichael, a lawyer for the fund.

"The ultimate concern with enacting something like that is that it infringes on religious freedoms," Carmichael said. "There's a huge constitutional concern here. Both Carmichael and Daniel, the Anchorage attorney, agree that religious organizations are protected by an exemption already in city law that says religious institutions and groups can give preferential treatment to people of the same religion if they are, for example, hiring someone who will promote religious principles.

The Defense Fund analyzed the Anchorage initiative several weeks ago at the request of the Alaska Family Council, a conservative Christian organization that opposes the initiative.

"We just want to be really clear about the consequences of enacting it," said Jim Minnery, Alaska Family Council president.

Supporters of the initiative also include religious people, with 40 ordained pastors plus others in two pro-initiative groups, Christians for Equality and Faith Leaders for Equality, said the Rev. Michael Burke of St. Mary's Episcopal Church.

Burke said sponsors of the initiative consciously decided not to change the existing Anchorage law regarding religious exemptions to discrimination law. In cases where religious principles are not involved, religious groups do have to follow discrimination law with regard to race, color, sex, religion, etc. But the initiative sponsors did not add sexual orientation or transgender identity to the list.

PFAW

Alliance Defense Fund Lawyer Says Children "Suffer" From Same-Sex Parents, Not Bullies

Holly Carmichael of the Alliance Defense Fund wrote a column today responding to a San Jose Mercury News article about a new children’s book that “tells the story of a brother and sister who are disparaged at school by a boy who insists their moms aren’t really married.” The Mercury News mentions the story of a local seven year-old boy who was teased for having two moms; but for Carmichael, the real tragedy isn’t that the child faced insults at schools because of his family, but that he is being raised by a lesbian couple. Carmichael, who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief [pdf] on behalf of Concerned Women for America urging Judge Vaughn Walker in Perry v. Schwarzenegger to uphold Proposition 8, went on to compare having same-sex parents raising a child to telling a child that he or she doesn’t need to eat protein:

A recent news article praised a children’s book for promoting the biological fiction that a child can have “two moms” or “two dads.” The article contained one of the saddest passages I’ve seen in a news story:

[A seven-year-old boy] has been teased for having two mothers. The Mountain View third-grader, who attended Wednesday's reading with mother Shannon, said that some kids have asked whether his father is dead. "I don't even really have a dad," he'll reply. "Nobody's dead."

The loss of a parent—regardless of age or circumstance—is an awful, tragic thing. Even if it were biologically possible, is anyone better off to never have a father? Yes, there are some misguided dads who inflict more harm than good in their children’s lives. But our society suffers if we simply delete fatherhood from life’s equation. More poignantly, the little boy in the article will suffer. He has already suffered.

Think about it this way—What if this young man had been told by his “two moms” that nutritional guidelines are silly, so he didn’t need protein? If he never ate foods containing protein he would not develop a taste for protein rich foods and would therefore not miss it, right? Wrong. A protein-free diet is not consequence-free – the biological reality is that the body needs protein. No matter what his “moms” might tell him, someday he would discover that he’s missing protein. At that point, how does the false teaching and belief that he never needed it correct the problems caused by the lack of protein in his diet? The worst part of this scenario would not be his protein deficiency, but the unnecessary and untrue story that he didn’t need it to begin with.

The analogy is not meant to make light of the importance of fathers. Dads are not hamburgers or chicken nuggets. Fathers are necessary at nearly every level of our existence, for both sons and for daughters, and throughout our entire lifetimes. Those of us who are missing a dad know this. But I know that I am far better off knowing what I am missing. One thing is fairly certain – nothing good can come out of telling this seven-year-old boy that he never really had a dad.

PFAW

ADF Slams New York City Over Comprehensive Sex Education

In a column today, The Alliance Defense Fund’s David Cortman called New York City’s comprehensive sex education plan a case of “inmates running the asylum.” The city is “encouraging schools to use two vetted, evidence-based, age-appropriate, comprehensive sex ed curricula: HealthSmart and Reducing the Risk,” which “are providing the curricula for free, and offering training and technical assistance to schools on the implementation process.” The programs teach abstinence, but since they also include lessons about safe sex, right-wing groups like the ADF are enraged. Cortman argues that the highly reputable program is essentially “an orchestrated public school porn push”:

Nearly every week, I come across an article where parents in some community are in an uproar over school districts promoting inappropriate sexual materials to our kids. Whether it’s related to homosexual behavior or other age-inappropriate sexual issues, there seem be school districts across the land intent on sexualizing our kids.

Honestly, it’s as if there’s an orchestrated public school porn push taking place.

This week’s example can be found in a New York Post article concerning New York City schools. Under a mandatory “sex ed” curriculum, the department of education wants middle and high school students taught their version of the birds and the bees.

And look at what else they want to teach our 11 and 12 year olds – the students will be given “risk cards” to rate the “safety” of several activities, which include intercourse with a condom, mutual masturbation, oral sex and anal sex. (Did I mention that this was for 11 and 12 year olds?)

What about teenagers in high school? It gets worse. They’ll be required to go to stores and study condoms – brands, prices and features. And they’ll be referred to wholesome resources like Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice web site, which includes discussions on different sexual positions, sadomasochism, phone sex, porn stars and bestiality. Not kidding.

The alleged “justification” for this porn push, I mean “sex ed,” is to curb unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Really? Since when does telling kids to have sex reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and STDs?

In reality, it appears to be just another vehicle the government can use to sexualize our children.

Unsurprisingly, Cortman’s column is more grounded in right-wing ideology than factual accuracy.

Natalie Ravitz of the New York City Department of Education writes, in response to a report in the New York Post, that teenagers aren’t referred to Go Ask Alice or that middle school students will receive “risk cards”:

For example, contrary to what The New York Post reported, the risk card activity that 11 and 12 year olds will supposedly be doing is actually one of the lessons we removed from HealthSmart because we didn't think it was age-appropriate.

Another error in their reporting -- New York City DOE does not refer teens to resources such as Columbia University's GoAskAlice.com website. GoAskAlice.com is listed in teacher materials as one of many in a list of possible resources that teachers can utilize for tips on answering questions on sexuality. We do not direct students to the website. But far be it for facts to get in the way of a good "XXX" headline.

Reducing the Risk is a research-based sex risk reduction curriculum that is shown to help delay the initiation of sexual intercourse, increase the use of contraception among teens who do initiate sexual intercourse, and increase parent-child communication about abstinence and contraception.

Both HealthSmart and Reducing the Risk emphasize that abstinence is the best way to avoid risk. Students are encouraged to talk to their families about these topics in the context of their family values. They both state that students should use protection correctly and consistently if they currently are or will choose to become sexually active later in their lives.

PFAW

Jackson: IRS Regulations Designed To Silence Black Churches

Earlier this month, hundreds of pastors across the nation participated in the Alliance Defense Fund's annual "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," during which they openly endorsed or opposed political candidates from their pulpits in a direct challenge to the IRS.

Among those participating pastors was Bishop Harry Jackson who, along with Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was featured in a short video from Odyssey Networks about the effort.

In the video, Jackson provided a rather unique explanation for his involvement in opposing IRS regulations that prohibit churches from engaging in politics, asserting that such regulations were put in place in order to prevent black churches from speaking out in support of the civil rights movement:

Of course, the reality is that the prohibitions grew out of an amendment inserted into the tax code by Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954 (years before he became president) in response to attacks on him by tax-exempt groups that accused him of being soft of Communism during his re-election campaign.

If Jackson is going to be involved in leading this challenge to the IRS, it might be helpful for him to actually know what he is talking about.

PFAW

Alliance Defense Fund To Launch Law School Aimed At Creating "Liberal Chaser" Attorneys

Religious Right leaders are coming together to form yet another law school to train future lawyers of the conservative movement. The right-wing Alliance Defense Fund is helping Louisiana College, a Southern Baptist institution, start the Paul Pressler School of Law, which will join Liberty University, Regent University and others in providing politicized training to the next generation of Religious Right lawyers.

Pressler’s ties to the Alliance Defense Fund will be similar to the Liberty University School of Law’s partnership with Liberty Counsel and the Regent University School of Law’s (originally Oral Roberts University’s Coburn School of Law) alliance with the American Center for Law and Justice. As Sarah Posner notes, such law schools intend to “teach the ‘biblical’ foundations of the law” and create “lawyers unafraid to inject their particular Christian beliefs, not only into the public square, but quite deliberately into legislation, policy, and jurisprudence.”

According to the National Law Journal, the new law school “is named for Paul Pressler III, a former Texas Court of Appeals judge who helped lead the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention during the 1970s.”

The founding dean of the Pressler law school, J. Michael Johnson, was previously senior counsel of the ADF and, according to his Townhall.com bio, has “provided legal representation to organizations such as Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Toward Tradition, the American Family Association, and Coral Ridge Ministries, and numerous family policy councils and crisis pregnancy centers.” In 2005, Johnson won the “Faith, Family and Freedom” award from Family Research Council president Tony Perkins for his work defending the Louisiana Marriage Protection Amendment, which placed a ban on same-sex marriage in the state’s constitution.

Yesterday on Today’s Issues, Perkins, who is a member of Pressler’s board of reference, spoke to Johnson about the new law school. Johnson said the law school would be “not unlike what our colleagues are doing at the Liberty University School of Law and the Regent University School of Law.” Perkins said, “This law school’s not going to be pumping out ambulance chasers, this is going to be pumping out liberal chasers, I mean we’re gonna track them down, wherever they are and we’re gonna defeat them, and if we can’t defeat them in the policy realm we’re gonna defeat them in the courts.” He added, “This law school is gonna be pumping out God-fearing, American-loving, family-defending attorneys”:

The choice of Louisiana College is no surprise. The school claims it “seeks to view all areas of knowledge from a distinctively Christian perspective and integrate Biblical truth thoroughly with each academic discipline” and believes “academic freedom of a Christian professor is limited by the preeminence of Jesus Christ, the authoritative nature of the Holy Scriptures, and the mission of the institution.”

In 2008 the school barred members of the Christian LGBT group Soul Force from appearing on campus. In his decision to bar the group, the college’s president cited a fake James Madison quote propagated by David Barton, which states that the U.S. government was based on “the Ten Commandments.”

Now David Barton is serving on the board of the law school.

Along with Perkins and Barton, Religious Right leaders on the board include Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association, Alveda King of Priests for Life, Religious Right luminary Tim LaHaye and his wife Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America, Kelly Shackleford of the Liberty Institute and Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese. Republican politicians including Reps. Rodney Alexander and John Fleming, former congressman Bob McEwen, and senatorial candidate and Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz are also on the board.

PFAW

Beck Endorses "Pulpit Initiative" Effort To Challenge IRS

Over the last several weeks, Jim Garlow has taken the lead in promoting the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative," an effort to get pastors to speak out on political issues and even endorse or oppose candidates during their sermons in a direct challenge to the IRS.

Last week, Garlow and Richard Land were featured on Glenn Beck's new program to push the effort and got Beck to announce his support as he vowed to do whatever he can to promote it, get pastors signed up, and "make a big deal out of it":

PFAW

Endorsing Candidates From The Pulpit Does Not Make You Dietrich Bonhoeffer

As we noted a few weeks ago, Jim Garlow has become the face and leading activist on behalf of the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative," which encourages pastors to speak out on political issues and even endorse or oppose candidates during their sermons in a direct challenge to the IRS.

Yesterday, Garlow was a guest on James Dobson's radio program where he outlined just what sort of sermon he plans to preach on "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" to urge his congregation not to vote for candidates that do not share his values and then compared the effort to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian who resisted the Nazis and was ultimately put to death:

Garlow: But here's the kind of phrasing that I would likely use on that Sunday. I would say the following candidates have the following positions as ti relates to abortion, as it relates to the definition of marriage, as it relates to their view of that national debt - because the national debt is a moral issue, thou shall not steal from future generations. And, that being the case, here's the following candidates that hold these various views of these three and perhaps many other topics.

Having said that, here's what the Scripture teaches specifically about that. And, after I go through that, as fully-devoted followers of Jesus Christ, we would not want to elect individuals - given the fact that the Bible has a great deal to say about economic, or life principles, or the definition of marriage in a scriptural context - we would not want persons who are in defiance of God's will in positions of authority over us. What fully devoted follower of Christ would want to defy God's will for how national and community life is to be ordered according to the Scripture?

Dobson: It essentially comes down to "use it or lose it," right? we've had rights in the past and we were willing to allow the IRS and the government to silence us and we didn't complain. Or not enough complained. Or not enough defied the order, which is just unconscionable when you consider we're drawing our information for our understanding and interpretation of the Scripture and the somebody in Washington can tell me that I can't say that? That's what happened in Sweden, it's what's happening in Canada and in other parts of the country. This is a movement that threatens the very life of the church. And, man, I'm preaching it now Jim and I'm not even a pastor.

Garlow: April the ninth, 1945, a man was stripped of all his clothes, taken outside and hung by a piano wire. His name was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. We celebrate how great that man was and what an incredible human being he was and the martyr he became. Why do we celebrate his life? It is because he was a man of God who refused to succumb to the powers of the government that tried to control what he would do and say in the pulpit and in his ministerial and pastoral life. And so we're attempting to see, before it's too late, before it's too late in America, to raise up a generation of Dietrich Bonhoeffers.

PFAW

Garlow Announces First Annual "Ruben Diaz Courage Award"

Jim Garlow has recently become a leading figure in promoting the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative" which encourages pastors to challenge the IRS by speaking on political issues during their sermons and endorsing candidates.

On the ADF's "Speak Up" blog, a post appeared the other day announcing that Garlow would be hosting a "webinar" today to promote the effort that would feature New York state Senator Ruben Diaz, one of the most consistently vociferous anti-gay leaders operating today.

The post has since been removed, but we retained a copy of it in which Diaz was hailed as perhaps "the most courageous pastor in America":

Who is the most courageous pastor in America? There are likely many candidates for this title, but I would nominate Pastor Ruben Diaz of New York City. After you hear what he stands for and what he has endured, you might want to nominate him, too.

But more importantly, you have the privilege of hearing him in a special nationwide webinar for pastors (from either your phone or your computer) this Wednesday, August 31 at 9 AM Pacific, 10 AM Mountain, 11 AM Central, 12 Noon Eastern.

Ruben serves as pastor of, the Christian Community Neighborhood Church in New York City, in the Bronx. But there is more. He is a New York State Senator. But there is even more. Prior to being a Senator, he served on the New York City Council, winning the election 79% to 22%, the only ordained minister serving on the council.

But there is yet even more. In liberal New York City, he is 100% pro-life, one of very few – if not the only – Democrat State Senator to hold to the biblical position.

And – as you would expect – yes, there is even more. Pastor Diaz has fought hard for traditional, natural marriage, the only Democrat to stand for one man-one woman marriage in bitterly fought legislative battles year after year.

But Pastor Diaz stood – like a rock. And he has paid dearly.

Bottom line: (1) he may well be the most courageous pastor in America, and (2) you can hear him in a pastors webinar interview the Wednesday, August 31.

Today, we listened in to the webinar where Jim Garlow positively gushed over Diaz and announced that he would be the first recipient of the first annual "Ruben Diaz Courage Award" from the Newt Gingrich-founded Renewing American Leadership organization:

Garlow: You know that I am so impressed with your story and there's all kind of details that we can't go into right now. But I'm so impressed with how you have stood that an organization that I'm chairman of in Washington DC called Renewing American Leadership - as soon as we can, I hope in the next few week - I'm going to be with you in New York City and I want to present to you what I think is the first annual Ruben Diaz Courage Award that will go to elected officials each year who are willing to withstand the tide of public pressure to stand for moral and biblical issues. But you are modeling something that is such a huge encouragement to us ...

Diaz: I'm honored and humbled to hear you say that. I'm praying and waiting for that day so that I can meet you and hug you and praise the Lord together.

Garlow: I think anyone listening sees why Ruben Diaz has an award named after him. I'm going to be presenting the first annual to him, the Ruben Diaz Courage Award. Senator Diaz, we bless you, we love you, it's a joy to know you this way and I'll look forward to meeting you in person.

PFAW
Syndicate content