United States Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C.

I am not one of those who believe that Christians, or people of faith generally, are being unduly persecuted in the United States. The situation is far worse in Europe, but even attacks on the liberties of believers in Europe pale in comparison to the fierce persecution Christians and others face in countries such as China, Nigeria, Iran, North Korea, and Nicaragua.

Still, it is disturbing that believers are regularly having to expend resources of time and treasure defending their right to live according to their faith, especially when the freedom of religion has been so integral a part of the American experiment since the very beginning. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is literally the first right delineated in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, repeatedly, governments keep attempting to, if not establish a religion, then certainly “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Biden administration repeatedly attempting to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, sex-change operations, euthenasia, and sterilizations; the continued harassment of the Little Sisters of the Poor; the attempts to force the Hawthorne Dominicans to adopt gender ideology; attempts to force Christians to act contrary to their sincerely held beliefs, or to deny them the privilege to foster children because they will not accommodate an LGBTQ+ lifestyle; the state of Wisconsin attempting to force Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior to pay for secular benefits. All of these cases, and others, demonstrate that, despite our First Amendment, government too often attempts to force people of faith to act in ways contrary to their faith, or denies them the benefits extended to others if they refuse.

More examples:

Christian campus organizations sue Virginia State University for discrimination. Two Christian student organizations, Women of Victory and Bethel Campus Fellowship, have filed a federal lawsuit against Virginia State University (VSU), claiming that VSU discriminated against them by taking away their official campus status and placing them under the direct authority of a campus minister appointed by the university. VSU’s new Campus Ministries Policy requires that Christian organizations be under the control of a campus minister who, incidentally, disagrees with the two groups on theological grounds, but exempts non-Christian religious organizations from the same requirement. According to the new policy, all Christian student-led organizations are mandated to be under the “governance and influence” of VSU Campus Minister Thomas Wynn and an advisory board of faculty and university personnel. The policy also forbids Christian organizations from being affiliated with any national parent organization. Both Women of Victory and Bethel Campus Fellowship are affiliated with national parent organizations. According to the lawsuit, however, non-Christian student organizations are exempt from this mandate. Interviewed by Fox News Digital, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, who is representing the two Christian organizations, said, “The Supreme Court has held for a very long time that all student groups on campus must be treated equally, and you can’t single some out simply because of what they believe,”

Supreme Court to hear case of Catholic Church that wants to build grotto on its own property. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case from Kentucky of a Catholic Church that wants to build a grotto on their own property and a neighboring couple who are trying to stop them from doing so. Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church in Park Hills, Kentucky has served the Catholics of the city for almost a century. The Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, who staff the parish, want to build a prayer grotto in honor of Our Lady of Lourdes. St. Bernadette, a peasant girl living in Lourdes in southern France, received visions of the Mother of Jesus over the course of several months in 1858. A pool of water sprung from the ground that has been a source of healing for thousands over the last 166 years. Instructed by her parish priest to ask the Lady to tell Bernadette her name, she replied, “I am the Immaculate Conception.” This was regarded as confirmation of Pope Pius IX’s 1854 promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, that Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb free of original sin. The Missionaries applied for a conditional-use permit and variance to build the grotto behind their church building. They required the variance because the zoning code originally prohibited religious institutions from building a religious structure on the property because it was zoned as residential. The grotto would be around 600 square feet and include a shrine, a walking path, a plaza, and a retaining wall. The Park Hills Board of Adjustment granted the variance and approved the church’s permit application in 2021. Neighbors of the church, Joel and Elizabeth Frederic, objected to the project and challenged the Park Hills Board in court. They are concerned that the grotto will increase traffic to their relatively quiet neighborhood. A trial court ruled in favor of the permit having been approved, but the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed their decision, ruling that the Park Hills Board over-reached and had no authority to grant the variance and approve the permit. The case went to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which also ruled in favor of the Frederics, arguing that, since the zoning laws apply equally to both religious and secular institutions, there was no discrimination against the church. The Missionaries of St. John the Baptist appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided to hear the case, agreeing to consider whether prohibiting a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property places a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion in consideration of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which protects individuals, houses of worship, and religious groups from discrimination in local zoning and landmarking laws. It seems obvious to me that a church ought to be able to build a grotto on its own property. I suspect the Frederics would insist on their right to build a she-shed or a shrine to Mother Earth, or whatever, on their property without being harassed by the neighboring parish trying to stop them. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty, which is representing the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, said of the case, “Neighbors should not be permitted to wield local zoning laws as a heckler’s veto to oppose the cherished traditions of churches. Federal law provides clear protections for how faith-based organizations can use their property to support their mission, but courts have weakened and confused that promise.”

Amish parents fight for right not to vaccinate their children. A group of Amish parents in New York state are suing for the right to refuse vaccinating their children as a prerequisite for their children attending public schools. New York is one of four states that does not provide a religious exemption to the mandate that all children be vaccinated to attend public schools (the others are Maine, Connecticut, and California). The case, Miller v. McDonald, was first taken up by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the state. The case was sent to the Supreme Court of the U.S., which sent the case back to the 2nd Circuit for that court to reconsider their decision in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, a 2025 case where the SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that Montgomery County, Maryland parents could opt their children out of an English curriculum that included books featuring LGBTQ+ characters. The 2nd Circuit did reconsider their initial ruling, but again ruled in favor of the state, insisting that all children, including those who dissented on religious grounds, were required to be vaccinated to be enrolled in public schools. Earlier this year, a mother, also in New York, was denied an emergency appeal by the SCOTUS to not have her kindergarten-aged son vaccinated. The child’s mother says she opposes vaccines because of her Catholic faith. Experts suggest that, one of the things the Catholic mother has against her is that the Catholic Church generally supports vaccines and vaccine mandates. There is little support for her position, then, in the teachings of the Catholic Church. So, basing her claim on her Catholic faith might be difficult. The Amish, on the other hand, are a mixed bag. There are some Amish who consent to their children being vaccinated, and others who do not. What’s more, unlike in the Catholic Church, there’s no central authority for Amish believers to turn to for counsel and guidance on what is and is not Amish faith. But the First Amendment doesn’t just protect the faith principles of churches or groups of believers, it protects those of individual believers, as well. James Hodge Jr, JD, LLM, director of Arizona State University’s Center for Public Health Law and Policy, says that the SCOTUS has “moved steadily closer to advancing” the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, refusing to allow governments to interfere with individual’s faith principles and the actions they take under that principle. “It would not surprise me,” Hodge stated, “to see this Court strip states of its denials of religious exemption given repeated, annual requests in manifold other cases seeking the Court’s decision on this question.” The Amish are claiming that the vaccine mandate infringes on their right to practice their faith. The state, on the other hands, claims it has a responsibility to keep children safe and healthy, and that the interest of public safety limits the scope of the First Amendment on how people put into action their religious principles. I’m of two minds on this question. Yes, the state has a responsibility to keep school children safe from harm, as much as is possible, and the efficacy of vaccines is contingent on herd vaccination. In other words, if enough parents refuse to have their children vaccinated, it would compromise the efficacy of the vaccines. On the other hand, there are prolly so few Amish children looking to enroll in public schools that their numbers would not squelch the efficacy of the vaccines, since enough other children are being vaccinated. As a Registered Nurse, I know the importance of vaccines. As a citizens who appreciates the rights protected by the First Amendment, I understand the desire of parents to be true to their religious principles. Many Christian parents who are pro-life remain suspicious of the connection between vaccines and fetal cell lines that originated in two elective abortions in the 1960s. However, the children were not aborted for the purpose of creating vaccines, and the cell lines have been cloned thousands of times, so there is nothing of the original fetal cells remaining in the lines that are used to manufacture vaccines. Also, no new abortions are being performed to provide for the manufacture of vaccines. The Vatican has ruled that, since the children were not aborted for the purpose of using their cells in the manufacturing of vaccines, and since the original cells are long absent from the process, the connection between the original abortions and the vaccines manufactured today are remote enough to morally justify the reception of the vaccines, especially given the enormous health benefits of vaccines, including protecting mothers and their children from serious illnesses. The Amish who are arguing this case are not refusing the vaccines on those grounds, however. They believe, rather, that the vaccines represent a technology antithetical to the Amish faith, or that reception of the vaccines represents a lack of faith in the protection of His people that God provides. I cannot speak for the Amish, but that last bit is certainly not consistent, I think, with the theology of most Christian traditions. God protects His people, of course, but one of the means He uses to protect His people is the intelligence of researchers to develop the means to protect people from serious illnesses and to cure them if they do become ill. And I think the Catholic mother who claims her Catholic faith doesn’t allow her to vaccinate her children doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on, since the Catholic Church has defined teachings, and opposition to vaccines is not a teaching of the Church. Even still, I can’t help but side with the Amish here. The fact is, there is prolly enough herd vaccination to protect children, including the Amish, from contracting serious illnesses. I don’t think the government has grounds here to impose its position on people of serious faith. The Amish, in fact, have argued that they would be forced out of the state if they are obliged by the courts to vaccinate their children. Since 46 states allow parents to opt out of vaccine mandates on religious grounds, they’ll have plenty of places to go. But what a hassle!

Catholic schools and families sue to participate in “universal” pre-school funding. In 2023, Colorado began a program through its Department of Early Childhood that provided around $6300 to eligible families for the purpose of covering the cost of 15 hours of preschool per week. The families could enroll their children in public, private, or faith-based preschools. Dan and Lisa Sheley, parishioners at St. Mary Catholic Church in Littleton, Colorado, are planning to enroll their youngest child in the preschool at the parish in 2028. However, the state has informed parents that they are not eligible for the benefit if they decide to send their children to a preschool program in the Archdiocese of Denver. Why? Because the Archdiocese requires all parents who enroll children in their schools to support and adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The state of Colorado demands that all schools embrace the LGBTQ+ lifestyle and transgender ideology to be eligible for the benefit. The Archdiocese of Denver refused to sign on to the state’s demands because the LGBTQ+ lifestyle and transgender ideology are contrary to Catholic teaching. So, Colorado has made parents who plan to send their children to Catholic preschools ineligible for the benefit. More than 1500 children across 30 Catholic preschools were denied funding because they chose to place their children in Catholic schools that do not embrace the morals of the secular culture. At the same time, the state has allowed secular preschools to place limits on who their schools will enroll, including only accepting children from low-income families, or families that have received housing vouchers. The Catholic schools have been informed by the state that they would be eligible for the funding if they prioritized enrolling children from LGBTQ+ families, transgender children, or even children of a particular race. The consequences of the actions of Colorado have been fierce. Enrollment in Catholic preschools in the Archdiocese of Colorado has declined by 20%, and two Catholic preschools have been forced to close. Thus, Colorado’s discriminatory practices have created fewer opportunities for parents to send their children to preschool, the exact opposite of what the program was intended to do. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sided with Colorado when they heard the case. The complainants asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case and the SCOTUS agreed. Arguments are expected to be heard by the SCOTUS this fall. I think Colorado will lose this case. Catholics pay taxes, just like everyone else. The state cannot create a program that promises a benefit to families, and then deny those benefits because the institutions the parents choose for their children hold teachings that are twenty-centuries old or more, against the state’s principles that were adopted ten or twenty years. The state is essentially telling Catholics they are second-class citizens who are required to pay their taxes to the state, but are not eligible for the benefits those taxes support because of what they believe and how their beliefs compel them to act. That’s discrimination. I recall years ago having a conversation with a friend who was upset that the Catholics in a particular state (don’t recall which) were voting down certain provisions that the public schools wanted to fund for their curriculum. He thought that was unjust. I suggested that, if he didn’t want the Catholics voting down provisions effecting the public schools’ curriculum, then it was a simple solution to provide tuition tax credits to Catholic families, so their tax money would no longer be collected for support of the public schools. Well, he balked at that idea, because then the public schools would lose considerable funding. I pointed out to him that, what he was saying, is that he wanted the Catholics to pay taxes to support the public schools, then keep their mouths shut when it came to the public schools’ curriculum. He didn’t have much to say to that, and I suspect it was because that is precisely what he wanted, though, being a reasonable man, he knew that such was unjust. Well, the same thing is happening in Colorado. Colorado wants Catholics to pay their taxes for public schools, but they don’t want Catholics to receive the benefits of those taxes because they believe things the Colorado state legislature regards as abhorant, because twenty years ago societal mores shifted and Colorado went full throttle into adopting the LGBTQ+ and transgender agendas. But the LGBTQ+ and transgender agendas do not trump the First Amendment. I predict Colorado will lose this one.

Orthodox Jewish man told he cannot have a prayer group in his home without a permit. In early 2021, Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew who lives in University Heights, Ohio, sent an email invitation a group of 12-15 fellow Orthodox Jewish men in his neighborhood to walk to his house and join him in a Sabbath minyan, a Jewish prayer group. A neighbor saw the email and, for reasons I suspect are easily explained, decided to inform the mayor of University Heights, demanding that the mayor put a stop to Grand’s offensive behavior. Imagine! The audacity to asking friends over to your home to pray! What’s this country coming to? Well, the mayor couldn’t just let this horrible crime go unattended. So, he arranged for University Heights’ law director to send Mr. Grand a cease-and-desist order. Grand was accused of running an illegal “place of religious assembly.” Now, one has to wonder what, in the United States of America, exactly is an illegal “place of religous assembly.” Grand was ordered to stop the prayer group gathering or face legal penalties. Basically, the city of University Heights is treating Grand’s gathering of a handful of men in his home to pray together on the Sabbath the same way it treats an actual Jewish synagogue, a Muslim temple, or a Christian church – as a “place of religious assembly” that requires a special-use permit. Let’s reflect on the fact that, Grand’s gatherings did not involve cars parking all over his yard or his neighbor’s yards, or blocking driveways or making use of the street impossible. All of the men invited were Orthodox Jews who don’t drive on the Sabbath. There were no noise violations, no signage violations, no disturbing the peace violations. It goes without saying, I think, that had Grand invited a dozen dudes over for a party with music, women, and cars parked everywhere, this activity would be perfectly legal. You’re allowed to entertain guests in your own home. But inviting them to pray? Here’s your cease-and-desist order, buddy! Watch your step! We don’t put up with that crap in our town! At first, Grand attempt to comply, and filled out an application for the necessary permit. But when the day of his hearing arrived, the city changed the format of the hearing to “quasi-judicial,” which meant that the records already collected were locked and Grand was not allowed to present additional evidence for his side. A public hearing ensued, to which neighbors sent letters opposing the permit. One letter read: “I am not Jewish and I do not want our neighborhood labeled as Jewish.” Grand himself was not allowed to submit statements other neighbors had made in support of his getting the permit. Then Grand was told that the permit he had applied for prohibited any “place of religious assembly” from being used as a primary residence. The only way, then, that Grand could have received the permit was to move out of his home and use his home exclusively as a place of worship. So, Grand decided to withdraw the application for the permit. After he withdrew his application for the permit, the harassment only grew stronger. The mayor encouraged Grand’s neighbors to surveil his home and report any activity that might be “consistent with those in a house of assembly.” Police were instructed to drive by Grand’s home, an act of intimidation. The city prosecutor investigated Grand for non-existent housing code violations. University Heights withheld Grand’s Certificate of Occupancy and tax abatements, causing him to have to pay lots more in taxes. The city even stopped picking up his garbage. In 2022, Grand filed a federal lawsuit against University Heights for violations of his First Amendment rights, violations of his rights under the Religious Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and violations of other federal and state laws. The district court, however, dismissed Grand’s case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit agreed with the district court’s ruling, arguing that Grand had not completed the permit process, so his case wasn’t ready to be reviewed by the courts. What? What difference does that make? There are clear violations of laws protecting the exercise of Grand’s religion, yet neither court addressed those violations. It’s as if Grand were the one either violating the law or presenting an inadequate case because he failed to do what the city demanded. But whether he is required to do what the city demanded is precisely the question the case asks! In February of this year, Grand himself wrote a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking them to hear his case. Happily, the SCOTUS agreed. I cannot imagine the SCOTUS ruling against Grand and in favor of the city of University Heights. The labeling of his private home a “religious assembly” because he asked a handful of friends to join him in prayer is absurd. I suspect there’s more than a little anti-Semitism brewing in University Heights, in the heart of the mayor, the law director, the city prosecutor, and the neighbor who sent a complaint to the mayor that got this ball rolling. The Alliance Defending Freedom, who is representing Grand, put it well in their article “Daniel Grand’s Story”: “If Daniel’s next-door neighbor invited nine friends over for a weekly poker night or a Tupperware party, his city would not require a special permit to operate a ‘casino’ or ‘storefront.’ Neither should Daniel’s home be labeled a ‘place of religious assembly’ because he wants to host a prayer group.”

As I wrote earlier, the free exercise of religion is the first right of the American people delineated in the Bill of Rights. People of faith, of any faith, ought not to have to constantly employ their resources in the effort to protect a right that has been a noble part of the America experience since the first halcyon days of our republic. Government’s efforts to impinge on our right to freely exercise religion, whether it be at our parochial schools, on our property, at our college campus, in our children’s bodies, or in our own homes, is nothing more than an effort to displace the faith of citizens with a primary allegiance to the state. This cannot stand. By God’s grace and the good-faith efforts of people of faith, it will not.

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.