Breakpoint

Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of high school football coach Joe Kennedy, who was fired from a Washington state public school for praying on the football field after games. He never forced anyone to join him, though many students and others often did, and he even agreed to pray silently by himself after the school raised concerns. That wasn't enough for school officials who demanded that if he insisted on closing his eyes in silent prayer, he had to do it somewhere out of sight. Coach Kennedy recognized their demands as a violation of his right to free religious expression. He is represented by First Liberty Institute. Coach Kennedy didn't set out to be a culture warrior or religiusreligious freedom icon. Like Jack Phillips and fellow Washingtonian Barronelle Stutzman, Kennedy has been objectified and caricatured. Political movements do this to people whose stories are valuable for political purposes. But these are more than faces on T-shirts. They are real people who have made real sacrifices. Barronelle Stutzman lost her flower shop. Jack Phillips has been harassed for going on ten years now. Coach Kennedy just wanted to coach football. How the rest of us should respond is by taking any opportunity we can to pray for him and his family. His story is one of many verifications that serious violations of religious freedom are actually happening. Some of these violations are clearly motivated by religious animus. For example, in Finland, a former parliamentarian was charged with criminally inciting hatred against gay people for quoting the Book of Romans to explain her views on sexuality. Thankfully, last week a Finnish Court ruled strongly in favor of both logic and free expression, protecting this official's speech. Other times, religious liberty violations are more symptoms of bureaucratic inertia or ignorance than of animus. The first few letters that Coach Kennedy's school sent asking him to stop praying aren't the rantings of radical atheists. In fact, the officials said they knew Coach Kennedy was "well-intentioned," and that he had never forced any students to participate in his prayer. Still, they asked him to stop, citing their fear that they'd be sued for a First Amendment violation. They didn't hate Coach Kennedy. They just didn't understand the First Amendment. They really didn't understand the First Amendment, in fact, which led to increasingly strange demands. In fact, religious organizations such as First Liberty Institute, say that's not uncommon. The majority of religious freedom violations are resolved quickly and quietly by sending a letter to an offending school or company, simply informing them of the law and its protections. But whenever ignorance of the law mixes with human stubbornness or, even worse, an animus toward Christianity and traditional Christian morality, institutions become increasingly intolerant of an individual's religious freedom. Even if it's still illegal, which it is, it becomes socially and politically easier. The state of Washington seems to be case-in-point. Coach Kennedy's clarity and courage gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to provide the clarity on religious freedom desperately needed in public schools and other institutions. All Christians need that kind of clarity. Too many have believed a sort of "inevitability" narrative, about the restriction of religious freedom advanced by bureaucratic demands. In fact, religious freedom is affirmed by the Supreme Court more often than not. And offending institutions back down more often than you think. Christians absolutely can stand on a football field and close our eyes in prayer, even if other people can see us. Christian educators can cite the Bible as a historical record or a masterclass in philosophy. Christian office workers can place a Bible on their desks. Christian school kids can host Bible studies after school. That's why I'm grateful for organizations that defend these rights and for organizations like Gateways to Better Education who teach Christian educators that they have those rights. The cartoon version of what's going on is that Christians like Coach Kennedy throw a temper tantrum in order to force religion on others. The real story is that religious freedom advances both Gospel witness and the public good, is a first freedom among many others, and is defensible, even as public sentiment against Christianity grows more hostile. We must not believe that unchecked and increased religious censorship is inevitable. It isn't, and it never should be.

Writing in Vox news, Luke Winkie describes a new and growing trend for health-conscious Americans: "microdosing." It consists of introducing small amounts of marijuana, magic mushrooms, ketamine, or other formerly illicit substances into a daily routine. The goal is to stay on top of mental health issues. "What the government once considered contraband is being claimed by wellness culture, one tiny dose at a time," Winkie writes; "After all, the chaos of the last few years has left so many Americans with a singular priority: to be calmer and happier, by any means possible." While the health benefits of microdosing are inconclusive at best , what is becoming clear is how we've confused coping with curing. That should be a warning sign. A world that treats every problem as a medical one misses the point. A population that increasingly needs dubious chemicals just to feel "okay" is one that's not OK. One early adopter put it this way: "I felt a disconnect from my logical, ever-critical brain to my soul." That feeling is real, even God-given. The answer she needs is one the Church is tasked with providing.

John and Shane field a question on Matthew Sleeth's book Hope Always. They also discuss a question about working in a public school, and John helps a dad who is challenged by the world of online dating.

Reality TV has earned a reputation of being crazy … and Netflix's dating show Love Is Blind is no exception. Over the course of 10 days, contestants on Love Is Blind talk, mingle, and then decide whether or not to get engaged—all without seeing each other first. When Season 2 wrapped up in March, a common question was whether the "love is blind" angle delivered more substance than other shows, like The Bachelor. The consensus was don't get your hopes up. As Vox news' Alex Abad-Santos put it, "This season had it all: gaslighting, lying, cutting, sarcasm. … [The producers] seemingly pulled no punches." Reality TV has long made a consumer product of romance, but the fact that people tried to make a show with this angle says something. Most people want more than just sexual chemistry or even infatuation. Real love isn't blind—it sees truly both glories and flaws, and still seeks the other's well-being regardless. That reality hasn't changed—even if we try to use the worst possible medium to show it.

New gruesome photos of babies aborted late-term in Washington, D.C, are a reminder of what abortion really is. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet. This is BreakPoint. Last week, D.C. police collected the bodies of five babies that were reportedly aborted late-term. A pro-life activist claims the bodies were given to her by a "whistleblower" from an abortion clinic. The clinic conducts abortions until week 27, but experts contacted by Live Action News believe that one of the babies looks to be between 28 and 32 weeks. I've seen the photos. They are absolutely horrific. The older baby is simply indistinguishable from a newborn. With the Supreme Court soon to announce a decision in the Dobbs case, the abortion industry continues to dig in its heels. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is about the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that limits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The fact that such a law would be fought, especially at the highest legal levels, is evidence that America's abortion laws are not where people, science, and the rest of the world are when it comes to abortion. Of course, Christians have additional, sacred reasons for opposing abortion at any age in any circumstance. Even so, despite the alarmism presented in the media and from abortion advocates about any abortion restriction, Americans don't want late-term abortions. A Wall Street Journal poll published last week found that a majority, although slim by 5%, were against abortion after 15 weeks. Another poll conducted last year by Associated Press and the NORC Center at the University of Chicago found that 65% of Americans don't want abortion after the first trimester, ending after week 12 or 13. Additional research shows that millennials lean more pro-life than Gen X. A major reason public opinion continues to trend toward more abortion restrictions instead of less is due to what we have learned from both natural and social science. Abortion is not the elimination of unformed masses but the killing of babies who, at 15 weeks, are developing eyebrows and eyelashes and can thumb suck and yawn. A survey conducted by pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List found that when people know the science they are more uncomfortable with abortions past 15 weeks. For example, 55% of survey takers informed that at 15 weeks a pre-born baby feels pain were "more likely" in support of a 15-week limit. And 53% indicated "more likely" support for a 15-week limit when informed that "by 15 weeks an unborn child has a beating heart, can move around in the womb, can close his or her fingers, can start to make sucking motions and hiccup, and senses stimulation from outside the womb." Also, 52% responded in "more likely" favor of a 15-week restriction when they learned that "abortion carries signific physical and psychological risks to the mother, and these risks increase with late abortions." This science appears to be convincing much of the rest of the world to restrict abortions closer to the first trimester. Even Chief Justice John Roberts in his exchange with abortion industry counsel during discussion on the Dobbs case noted that, except for China and North Korea, the U.S. seems to be out of step globally regarding the "viability standard." Viability outside of the womb is often thought now to begin at 24 weeks, and some high-tech NICUs' have made is as potentially low as 22 weeks of gestation. Sharing a standard with two of the nations known least for respecting life is not commendable. In fact, a report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute finds that the U.S. is only 1 of 7 nations that allow voluntary abortion past 20 weeks. As Patrick Kelly of the Knights of Columbus wrote in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago, up to 4,000 pregnancy resource centers are available for expectant mothers in the United States. Despite the criticisms of the abortion industry, Charlotte Lozier Institute in its research of 2,700 centers found that 25% of their paid staff were medically trained. The institute has shared that "consistently high client satisfaction rates reported to pregnancy centers reflect that women, men, and youth who visit centers feel respected, valued, and well cared for." When we advocate for life, we are not advocating for just the life of the baby but also for the life of the parents. They and the baby are both made in the image of God. If you are interested in "Preparing for a Post-Roe Future," consider attending a special evening event on Thursday, May 12, in Orlando, Florida, before our annual Wilberforce Weekend. This event features Tim Tebow, Stephanie Gray Connors of Love Unleashes Life, Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, Erin Hawley of Alliance Defending Freedom, and Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life. Join us to learn more about advocating for the pre-born, and continuing the struggle to abortion unthinkable.

At the end of March, the Associates for Biblical Research published a curse. While that may seem a strange thing to do, it wasn't their curse. The curse was written in Hebrew, inscribed on a small leaden amulet (or tablet). It was found in 2019 among materials previously excavated on Israel's Mt. Ebal. It's a short curse, just 40 letters in Hebrew and only 23 words when translated to English: "Cursed, cursed, cursed—cursed by the God YHW. You will die cursed. Cursed you will surely die. Cursed by YHW—cursed, cursed, cursed." As recorded near the end of Deuteronomy, God called the newly freed Israelites to assemble on Mt. Ebal and to declare there, to God and to one another, the promises of obedience and disobedience. Put another way, they were to announce the blessings and curses that came with their role as God's people. So, what we have in the discovery of this amulet is either a remarkable coincidence—a written curse left at the very location the Bible associates with curses—or yet another confirmation of something the Bible says happened. Even better, either of these options is the least important aspect of what makes this discovery interesting. The more important aspect is potentially earth-shattering for biblical studies. According to a professor at the University of Haifa, this discovery is "the earliest Hebrew inscription found so far." Scholars investigating the find place the date of the inscription to around 3,200 years ago. That puts it, biblically speaking, in the time of the Judges. The common perception among biblical scholars, however, has been that the bulk of the Bible wasn't written when it says it was. It's long been assumed that the early, and supposedly primitive, Israelites simply lacked the skill to come up with the written grandeur of books like Genesis and Deuteronomy. This tiny curse reveals that the right people at the right time in the right place were writing about God just as the Bible describes. Despite the confidence of the scholarly consensus, this provides proof of the Israelites' literary ability, hundreds of years before skeptics thought it possible. And this kind of thing keeps happening. Four years ago, a then-recent discovery of an exploding meteor wiping out a series of cities at the south end of the Dead Sea corresponded to about the time the Bible says that Sodom and Gomorrah met their fiery fate. Three years ago, an unearthed signet-seal affirmed the identity of someone mentioned in the biblical text. Two years ago, new DNA studies confirmed aspects of the biblical description of the Philistines' origin. How many times will the Bible have to be proved right before we accept it as true? There's a scene in the 1990 Shakespeare spoof Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead where Gary Oldman's character starts flipping a coin. Again and again and again, it comes up heads, over 70 times in a row! At first, he finds it strange, even amusing. As heads keep coming up, his partner in crime, played by Tim Roth, starts contriving explanations as to why the laws of probability have been suspended. They must, he concludes, be encountering a moment where the ordinary rules just don't apply. The repeated pattern of extraordinary events meant that something special was going on. This is what the Bible claims for itself. The Bible doesn't claim to be true in some watered-down "spiritual" sense. It claims to be the true record of God's intervention into human affairs. It does not describe a faraway fairy world built on wishes and dreams, but this world, the real one. It is here that Lazarus and Jesus were truly dead but raised to life again. It is in this world that actual Israelites escaped from actual slavery in Egypt. If what Scripture claims to have happened didn't, then we may as well "eat and drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Its reality confirms its truth. As the Apostle Peter claimed, Christianity is not rooted in "cleverly devised myths," but in the real account of actions in the real world. Bits of lead and clay in the dirt will never ultimately prove the Bible's claims to the satisfaction of all skeptics, but day after day, more evidence emerges that its claims should be taken seriously by not only archeologists and historians, but all of us. In Holy Scripture, something special is indeed going on.

A quote attributed to Greek tragedian Aeschylus says that, "In war, truth is the first casualty." This is a particular relevant point when it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. As Jon Greenberg with PolitiFact reports, in Russia "it is now a crime—punishable by up to 15 years in prison—to publish 'fake' information about the all-out attack on Ukraine. The government has blocked Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and news websites aimed at Russians, such as Latvia-based Meduza. It is a crime for the average citizen to publicly post information that contradicts the government line." The government line is that Russian forces are liberators not aggressors. According to Greenberg , Russians who want the truth have to be adaptable, and take big risks in order to join small internet groups or use virtual private networks, called VPNs. They are only being lied to otherwise. Truth matters for everyone. Everyday Russians, like the Ukrainians, are also victims of an autocratic regime, though in a less direct way. They deserve our prayers—every bit as much as this war deserves our opposition.

If a preborn baby isn't a human person with rights, when does it become one? Some abortion advocates have drawn that line at the second trimester, while very few others point to fetal heartbeat or detectable brain activity. Harder-line activists reject any abortion restrictions and insist it's okay to kill a baby at any point right up until or even during birth. Planned Parenthood's official stance is still to the point of viability, when the baby's experience of pain during abortion is excruciating. What has never been clear is why abortion supporters would draw the line at birth. At least in medical, scientific, and philosophical terms, passing through the birth canal doesn't change anything about a child. If a tiny human is considered a disposable inconvenience inside its mother, why would six inches and twenty minutes turn them into a person with rights? This is why some, like Princeton ethicist Peter Singer, propose that parents should be allowed to kill children well after birth, especially if they are born with a disability such as Down Syndrome. Until now, this horrifying consistency of pro-abortion logic hasn't made it into law. But as a Supreme Court decision looms in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, legislatures in progressive states are feverishly taking steps to safeguard so-called abortion "rights" in a potential post-Roe world. In at least one case, lawmakers finally followed the logic of abortion to its awful conclusion, and left room for post-birth infanticide. Maryland Senate Bill 669 would amend the state's fetal murder-manslaughter statute to prevent "any form of investigation or penalty" for a person "experiencing a miscarriage, perinatal death related to a failure to act, or stillbirth." Notice that this is not in the context of a botched abortion. Abortionists have already been caught more than a few times in the past allowing babies born alive after abortions to die. This law would prohibit investigations in any case where a baby died after birth as a result of neglect. Making matters worse, the term "perinatal" (which just means "newborn") is not clearly defined. Typically, as Wesley J. Smith points out at National Review, perinatal refers to baby's first month after birth, so this bill "effectively decriminalizes death by neglect for the first 28 days of life." "In other words," explained the American Center for Law and Justice, "a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death." Even worse, the Maryland bill authorizes those who are investigated for fatally neglecting an infant to sue law enforcement for civil damages. And, since even investigations are not allowed, if this bill became law, any Maryland residents could allow any newborn child to die without facing questions or consequences. Such deadly logic won't stop at passive infanticide, either. "Based on the current advocacy trajectory," writes Wesley J. Smith, "such proposals will eventually extend to permitting active infanticide, which is already promoted as legitimate morally by many in mainstream bioethics, and which currently is permitted in the Netherlands upon terminally ill babies and those born with serious disabilities." If this bill passes, and other states attempting to sure up abortion rights follow, Americans would be openly participating in a practice that has been widely condemned in the West since the Christianization of the Roman Empire. We should all pray this measure doesn't pass, and every citizen in Maryland of should make sure state lawmakers know what you think about it. The rest of us should take this as a wake-up call, the first skirmish in the post-Roe fight for the sanctity of life. The Supreme Court will not end abortion. Instead, a new battle, fought state by state and life by life, will be before us. This Maryland bill is just a taste of how high the stakes in that fight will be.

John Stonestreet explains the design of religious freedom, highlighting how it is the first freedom. John explains how this freedom is under attack in this cultural moment, and how Christians can respond to the increasing pressure to relinquish this right.

Thirteen years ago, satire news site The Onion aired a fake sports talk show announcing that March Madness would now allow four-thousand college basketball teams to compete. "All schools deserve to compete," said the fake announcers: "This will take March Madness all the way into June!" During this year's March Madness tournament, the NCAA, the governing body of collegiate athletics, has been running not-fake commercials openly patting themselves on the back for all the opportunities created for women. One ad celebrated the NCAA's embrace of Title IX, which gave female athletes the opportunity to compete in female-only sports leagues, along with greater access to scholarships and education. The self-congratulations rings a bit hollow since, just two weeks ago, the NCAA awarded a women's swimming championship to a man. The NCAA faces a real choice: Either acknowledge the real, consequential differences between men and women and why they are inherently relevant to physical competition, or become the organizing body that takes opportunities from women. If they choose the latter, and become a satire of themselves, the women will be the ones who suffer.