After [teachers] Baraki and Caldeira angered parents by using an “anti-bullying” presentation to teach kids what it means to be gay or lesbian, they explained to conference attendees that “Next year, we’re going to do just a little mind-trick on our sixth graders.”

Members of California’s biggest teachers union plotted how to push LGBT politics on children and undermine concerns about their tactics from parents, principals, and communities, reveals leaked audio from an October conference of the California Teachers Association (CTA).
“Speakers went so far as to tout their surveillance of students’ Google searches, internet activity, and hallway conversations in order to target sixth graders for personal invitations to LGBTQ clubs, while actively concealing these clubs’ membership rolls from participants’ parents,” Abigail Shrier reported on Thursday.

Three people from the “2021 LGBTQ+ Issues Conference” in Palm Springs, Calif., titled “Beyond the Binary: Identity & Imagining Possibilities,” sent recordings to Shrier revealing the radical content of some of the workshops.

Multiple seminars at the conference encouraged hosting LGBT clubs for middle schoolers. An audio clip reveals teacher Lori Caldeira explaining why such clubs keep no rosters, noting, “Sometimes we don’t really want to keep records because if parents get upset that their kids are coming? We’re like, ‘Yeah, I don’t know. Maybe they came?’ You know, we would never want a kid to get in trouble for attending if their parents are upset.”
Caldeira has noted in a separate podcast appearance that, in the club she runs that includes other people’s prepubescent minors, “What happens in this room, stays in this room.”
At the CTA conference, Caldeira and another teacher, Kelly Baraki, led an additional seminar about “How we run a ‘GSA’ [Gay-Straight Alliance club] in Conservative Communities,” and discussed their strategies for how to “get the bodies in the door” and ensure kids keep coming back when “we saw our membership numbers start to decline.”
Read More

Written by Gregory S. Baylor |
Thursday, November 17, 2022
The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced in July and quickly pushed through the U.S. House of Representatives without any public hearings, enabling its proponents to mischaracterize the bill as a simple codification of Obergefell. Let’s be clear: the Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary and could have a disastrous effect on religious freedom.

As soon as the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, activists went to work mischaracterizing the ruling.
Many used the decision—and particularly Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence—to claim that the Court could revisit other rulings, including the one in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage.
Using this feigned outrage as a cover, these activists pushed for a federal law called the Respect for Marriage Act.
The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced in July and quickly pushed through the U.S. House of Representatives without any public hearings, enabling its proponents to mischaracterize the bill as a simple codification of Obergefell.
Let’s be clear: the Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary and could have a disastrous effect on religious freedom.
What is the Respect for Marriage Act?
The so-called Respect for Marriage Act is a misnamed bill that expands not only what marriage means, but also who can be sued for disagreeing with the new meaning of marriage.
While proponents of the bill claim that it simply codifies the 2015 Obergefell decision, in reality it is an intentional attack on the religious freedom of millions of Americans with sincerely held beliefs about marriage.
The Respect for Marriage Act threatens religious freedom and the institution of marriage in multiple ways:

It further embeds a false definition of marriage in the American legal fabric.
It opens the door to federal recognition of polygamous relationships.
It jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that exercise their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
It endangers faith-based social-service organizations by threatening litigation and liability risk if they follow their views on marriage when working with the government.

The truth is the Respect for Marriage Act does nothing to change the status of same-sex marriage or the benefits afforded to same-sex couples following Obergefell. It does much, however, to endanger religious freedom.
Has the Respect for Marriage Act passed Congress?
On July 19, 2022, the House passed the Respect for Marriage Act. The vote caught many by surprise: not only did it happen quickly—just one day after the bill was introduced—but a surprising 47 Republicans, many of whom likely did not appreciate the threat it posed to religious liberty, voted in favor of the bill.
As the bill moved over to the U.S. Senate, a strong coalition of religious organizations voiced concerns and urged the Senate to slow down and take time to consider its true consequences.
An alliance of over 80 groups sent Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a letter urging him to stand firm against pressures to move the bill forward, and over 2,000 churches and ministries sent a letter to the Senate specifically calling attention to the effects of the bill on their ability to serve their communities in accordance with their religious beliefs. ADF organized and led both of these initiatives.
These efforts are working.
After the Respect for Marriage Act sped through the House, the Senate has delayed consideration of the bill so senators can better understand the harms it will cause to countless Americans. While many have voiced total opposition to the bill, a small group of senators from both parties, led by Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Susan Collins of Maine, are attempting to amend the bill to address the concerns that have been raised.
Unfortunately, their proposed amendment does not adequately address the bill’s significant religious freedom issues.
What would the proposed amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act do?
While these senators seem to acknowledge the objections to the Respect for Marriage Act, their amendment fails to address the bill’s problems in a substantive way.
Here are the major issues with this amendment:

There are no real protections for religious individuals or organizations.

The amendment adds a new section to the Respect for Marriage Act that purports to address religious liberty and conscience concerns.
But rather than adding any new concrete protections for religious individuals and organizations threatened by the Respect for Marriage Act, the new section simply states that those Americans whose beliefs are infringed can invoke already existing legal protections, like the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). As such, this new provision does not fix the bill’s negative impact on religious exercise and freedom of conscience. Those targeted under the bill will be forced to spend years in litigation and thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to protect their rights.

The amendment leaves numerous religious social-service organizations vulnerable.

The proposed amendment adds language that confirms that churches and religious organizations would not be forced to solemnize or celebrate a marriage against their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, this proposed provision ignores the true threats to religious organizations. No one thinks the Respect for Marriage Act requires churches to solemnize marriages.
The real problem is that the bill can be used to punish social-service organizations like adoption or foster placement agencies that serve their communities in accordance with their religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The proposed amendment does nothing to help such organizations.

The amendment fails to address concerns over nonprofits’ tax-exempt status.

The amendment adds a new section that attempts to address concerns about the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that live out their beliefs about marriage.
Once again, the amendment fails to substantively remedy this problem. When the IRS determines whether an organization is “charitable” under the Internal Revenue Code, it asks whether the entity’s conduct is “contrary to public policy” or violates a “national policy.”
If the Respect for Marriage Act were enacted, the IRS could rely upon the bill to conclude that certain nonprofits are not “charitable.” The amendment’s new provision does nothing to prevent this.
Unfortunately, the proposed amendment utterly fails to meaningfully address the serious religious freedom problems with the Respect for Marriage Act. The inclusion of provisions that purport to address religious freedom concerns may be a sign that senators heard the criticisms of the bill, but the hollow nature of the amendment demonstrates they do not understand the depth of the concerns being raised.
How can I advocate for marriage and religious freedom?
Alliance Defending Freedom is working hard to take a stand for marriage by opposing this bill, but it is imperative that senators hear from their constituents about the threat to religious liberty and the institution of marriage that the Respect for Marriage Act represents—even if amended.
We need the Senate to hear from you.
The Senate is expected to vote on the Respect for Marriage Act before the end of the year. Call your two senators and ask them to vote NO on the Respect for Marriage Act. You can find your senators’ phone numbers on this page by clicking on your state.
When you call them, remind them about the three main problems with the bill:

It empowers the government to punish tens of millions of Americans who wish to live according to their deeply held beliefs.
It exposes religious individuals and organizations to predatory lawsuits.
It could weaponize the IRS against faith-based organizations by threatening their nonprofit status.

Every phone call to a senator helps. The Respect for Marriage Act has little to do with protecting rights—quite the opposite. Its text betrays an intent to stigmatize and take rights away, especially from people of faith.
Tell your senator to stand firm against these blatant attacks on religious freedom and the institution of marriage.
Source
Related Posts:

Written by David G. Peterson |
Monday, July 22, 2024
Drawing near to God was only possible in a limited, cultic fashion under the Old Covenant, but those who draw near to God through Jesus Christ and his saving work experience the fullness of what was promised in connection with the New Covenant (Heb. 10:14–18; 12:22–24). The “better hope” by which Christians draw near to God is not simply the hope of future resurrection: it is the present hope that Jesus gives of approaching God “with confidence” to “receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Heb. 4:16, meta parrēsias; cf. Heb. 10:19–25). By this means we are sustained in our relationship with God until we are finally glorified with all who have benefited from his saving work (Heb. 9:15; 11:39–40).

The theme of perfection pervades the epistle to the Hebrews. The perfecting of Jesus is mentioned three times in passages critical for the development of the author’s Christology and soteriology (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). Additionally, four times the inability of the law to perfect believers is argued (Heb. 7:11, 19; 9:9; 10:1), and, in contrast, the perfection found in Christ is affirmed three times (Heb. 10:14; 11:40; 12:23). Using related terminology, the writer also urges his readers to be “taken forward to maturity” (Heb. 5:11–6:1, NIV 2011) and points them to Jesus as “the pioneer and perfecter of faith” (Heb. 12:2).[1] Clearly, the idea of perfection is critical to our understanding of this letter.
Yet, what does it mean that Jesus was perfected? Conducting a simple word study is not much help. Formally, the Greek verb means “to make teleios,” and so “to make complete” or “to perfect.” The verb itself carries no material associations of a moral or technical kind, and distinct content can only be given by the context or subject on each occasion. Therefore, we must pay careful attention to the argument in Hebrews to understand how the author is using this word in his particular context.
Some scholars have viewed the author’s use of the verb in relation to Jesus as simply applying to his heavenly exaltation, while others have argued for an even more specific application to his “ordination” as “high priest in the order of Melchizedek.” I will argue, however, that the perfecting of the Son of God relates to the whole process by which he was personally equipped or qualified by his earthly suffering and death, his priestly appointment, and his heavenly exaltation to be the promised Messianic deliverer of his people. I will make my argument by examining the three uses of “to perfect” (teleioun) referring to Jesus (2:10; 5:9; 7:28). Finally, I will conclude by considering how Jesus, as the perfected Savior, is equipped to completely perfect his people.
The Perfecting of Jesus
Perfected Through Earthly Suffering (Hebrews 2:10)
An Adamic Christology is foundational to this presentation of the person and work of Jesus in 2:5–18. Sin, death, and the devil prevent human beings from fulfilling their calling and destiny as described in Psalm 8:4–6. But Jesus is the heavenly man who ultimately achieves this for us by being “crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death” (Heb. 2:5–9; cf. 1 Cor. 15:20–28, 45–49). What follows is an exposition on this. The benefits of his “perfecting” are experienced by those whom he sanctifies by his blood, calling them his brothers and sisters, and bringing them to glory with him (Heb. 2:10–13; 10:10, 29; 13:12). Given God’s great purpose for his people and his gracious character, it was fitting that he should “perfect the leader who saves them through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10, my translation).[2]
God qualified Jesus or fully equipped him for his role “through sufferings” (dia pathēmatōn). This differs from the expression in Hebrews 2:9 (dia to pathēma tou thanatou), where “because he suffered death” (CSB) indicates the ground of his exaltation. In Hebrews 2:10, however, the plural noun has in view the whole experience associated with and leading up to his death (cf. Heb. 2:17–18; 5:7–9). The preposition (dia, “through”) with the genitive (pathēmatōn, “sufferings”) indicates that he was perfected through this process; his sufferings were not simply a prelude to his perfecting or the reason for it.
For reasons soon to be clarified, the author of Hebrews introduces the notion that Jesus was qualified by these experiences to become “a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God” (Heb. 2:14–18). Most importantly, he made atonement “for the sins of the people” by his death and entrance into the heavenly sanctuary (cf. Heb. 9:11–15), but his prior experience of suffering “when he was tempted” enables him to “help those who are being tempted.” The pastoral implications of this are drawn out in Hebrews 4:14–16, where the author urges, “Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (see also Heb. 10:19–22).
Read More
Related Posts: