Uncategorized – “Reasons for the Faith, aka Apologetics”

Universities Must Give Christian Clubs Equal Treatment

Universities Can’t Hold Christian Clubs to a Different Standard than Other Clubs.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled for the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship against the University of Iowa, calling the university’s decision to deregister a Christian student group one of the most obvious examples of discrimination that it has ever seen.

The case is Intervarsity Christian Fellowship v. the University of Iowa. https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/2021-07-16_IVCF-Iowa_Opinion.pdf

Intervarsity is one of several faith-based groups that organizes local chapters at colleges and universities around the country, holding worship services and conducting Bible studies. It had been a registered campus club at the U. of Iowa InterVarsity for over twenty-five years.

Unequal Application of Anti-Discrimination Laws and Policies.

As is often the case, people who are hostile to the Gospel use a facially-neutral anti-discrimination law as a vehicle for harassing Christian businesses, churches, and clubs. The people who serve on the government enforcement commissions are quite likely to share the same worldview as the people who file the complaints.

The Colorado Human Rights Commission has on multiple occasions pursued complaints against Jack of Masterpiece Cakes. Christians who filed similar complaints were summarily dismissed by the commission.

Intervarsity Becomes Collateral Damage.

Intervarsity became collateral damage in 2017, when a student filed a complaint against a different club, Business Leaders in Christ. He was denied a leadership role after refusing to affirm the group’s belief that same-sex relationships were against the Bible.

The University ruled in favor of the student and de-registered BLIC. BLIC filed for and received a preliminary injunction.

In response to the injunction, the University, through its Center for Student Involvement and Leadership, began a “Student Org Clean Up Proposal” and reviewed all student organization constitutions to bring them into compliance with the Human Rights Policy. several were deregistered for requiring their leaders to affirm statements of faith.

It appears from the language of the case that only Christian groups were deregistered.

Constitutional Law Summary.

This is from the final paragraph of the case:

“What the University did here was clearly unconstitutional. It targeted religious groups for differential treatment under the Human Rights Policy—while carving out exemptions and ignoring other violative groups with missions they presumably supported. The University and individual defendants turned a blind eye to decades of First Amendment jurisprudence or they proceeded full speed ahead knowing they were violating the law. Either way, qualified immunity provides no safe haven.”

Qualified Immunity.

According to Cornell Law School, “Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity. Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably”.

“Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff‘s rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.”

Conclusion.

If this reasoning applies in a religious liberty setting, might it also apply when government agents violate one’s Due Process and Equal Protection rights protected by the 5th & 14th Amendments? I’m thinking of all the business owners whose companies failed after government actors proclaimed them to be “non-essential.”

I asked a civil liberties lawyer about qualified immunity, and he replied: “The whole qualified immunity issue needs to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Lower courts have been too aggressive with it in letting government actors off if there is not an exact rule on point.”

Thank you!

Michael Oswald

michael@msochartered.com

www.msochartered.com

Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.

The U.S. Supreme Court Rules 9-0 for a Catholic Adoption Agency over the City of Philadelphia.

SCOTUS Finds Philly’s Procedures Unduly Burden Agency’s Free Exercise of Religion.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf

(Today’s post uses several blocks of text from the Court’s syllabus of the Fulton case.)

“Philadelphia’s foster care system relies on cooperation between the City and private foster care agencies. The City enters standard annual contracts with the agencies to place children with foster families. One of the responsibilities of the agencies is certifying prospective foster families under state statutory criteria. Petitioner Catholic Social Services has contracted with the City to provide foster care services for over 50 years, continuing the centuries-old mission of the Catholic Church to serve Philadelphia’s needy children. CSS holds the religious belief that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Because CSS believes that certification of prospective foster families is an endorsement of their relationships, it will not certify unmarried couples—regardless of their sexual orientation—or same-sex married couples.”

“The City ultimately informed CSS that unless it agreed to certify same-sex couples the City would no longer refer children to the agency or enter a full foster care contract with it in the future. The City explained that the refusal of CSS to certify same-sex married couples violated both a non-discrimination provision in the agency’s contract with the City as well as the non-discrimination requirements of the citywide Fair Practices Ordinance.”

“CSS and three affiliated foster parents filed suit seeking to enjoin the City’s referral freeze on the grounds that the City’s actions violated the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.”

Holding.

“Held: The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The City’s actions burdened CSS’s religious exercise by forcing it either to curtail its mission or to certify same-sex couples as foster parents in violation of its religious beliefs. “

“A law is not generally applicable if it invites the government to consider the particular reasons for a person’s conduct by creating a mechanism for individualized exemptions. Where such a system of individual exemptions exists, the government may not refuse to extend that system to cases of religious hardship without a compelling reason.”

Analysis.

“The contractual non-discrimination requirement burdens CSS’s religious exercise and is not generally applicable, so it is subject to “the most rigorous of scrutiny.” A government policy can survive strict scrutiny only if it advances compelling interests and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.”

“The question is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS. Under the circumstances here, the City does not have a compelling interest in refusing to contract with CSS. CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else. The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless the agency agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny and violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”

Conclusion.

I listened Monday, 6/21/21, to several Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys discussing this case. They think the ruling was 9-0 because the case was narrowly decided and didn’t overrule the case of Smith v. Employment Division. Many religious liberty lawyers believe Smith was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

Several of the justices have expressed a reluctance to overrule Smith unless there is a clear set of rules they can adopt at such time as they do overrule it.

Thank you!

Michael Oswald

michael@msochartered.com

www.msochartered.com

Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.

Ratio Christi – Mentoring Leaders for Eternal Impact

Mentoring Law Students for Success in the Temporal Realm.

I was blessed with the opportunity to serve as a part-time law professor at Western State University College of Law during the 2004 – 2007 timeframe.

I enjoyed teaching various business law classes, but I got the most satisfaction out of mentoring students during their internships. I also enjoyed mentoring students who sought leadership roles in a new business law association that my own mentor (Prof. Jim Hayes) had recently launched at the law school.

Mentoring Student Leaders for Eternal Impact.

I had a very exciting meeting last week with Dr. Bill Pubols, the Executive Director of the Biblical Studies Center across the street from Boise State. He welcomes Ratio Christi into the family of Christian student groups such as Cru and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Bill has generously offered to host the Ratio Christi club meetings and events at the Center. He also offered an office for me to use there.

During our meeting, he said he could see the chapter directors of the other clubs encouraging some of their late-blooming leaders (my words, not his) to take leadership opportunities that will emerge as the Ratio Christi chapter gets going this Fall.

Students who develop into confident Evangelists will almost certainly lead more people to Christ than they would otherwise.

Conclusion.

Please continue to pray that every step I take will be Biblical!

Thank you.

Michael Oswald

michael@msochartered.com

www.msochartered.com

Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.

Ratio Christi – Bootcamp Report

Engaging Others in the Ratio Christi Mission.

In my 5/17/21 post: Ratio Christi – Campus Apologetics + Evangelism I mentioned that I expected to learn how to engage others in the Ratio Christi mission.

I learned quite a bit. I think the most surprising thing I learned was that there is a Biblical basis for raising ministry support.

Old Testament Teaching.

In Numbers 18:24, God set aside the Levites for work in the Tabernacle, and the other tribes gave their tithes to these priests for their support.

In Nehemiah 1:1-11, Nehemiah the cupbearer to the Persian king prayed to God and prepared a request for substantial resources to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. God caused the king to provide everything.

New Testament Teaching.

In Luke 8:2-3, Jesus accepted support from Joanna, Susanna, and many other others to full the needs of Jesus and His disciples.

In 1 Cor. 9:1-18, Paul explained that he had the right to be supported in his ministry work. See verses 9 and 10 (ESV):

9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.

Conclusion.

I found this surprising because it runs counter to my cultural upbringing. I have long believed that I was required to earn everything myself.

Please pray for me that every step I take will be Biblical!

Thank you.

Michael Oswald

michael@msochartered.com

www.msochartered.com

Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.

Ratio Christi – Campus Apologetics + Evangelism

Equipping Students and Professors.

I am feeling called to help the church regain its prophetic voice in our culture. I believe the Holy Spirit has led me to join Ratio Christi. https://ratiochristi.org/

This statement on their website caught my eye last January. It is under the header Join us a Supported Missionary:

“Ratio Christi isn’t just another apologetics organization. We use our theological training to share the Gospel on college and university campuses across the globe. We reach the people that nobody else can – and we need your help.”

Boot Camp.

I will be attending an online support-raising “boot camp” later this week, in which I expect to learn how to engage others in the Ratio Christi mission.

Conclusion.

I plan to report back on this next week.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Michael Oswald

michael@msochartered.com

www.msochartered.com

Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.

Sean McDowell’s Great Interview of Nancy Pearcey

Nancy Pearcey, a Resource for Campus-Based Apologetics.

Nancy Pearcey is a best-selling author and instructor. She is a professor and scholar-in-residence at Houston Baptist University.

I am currently reading her book Love Thy Body, at the suggestion of Aaron Marshall.

Aaron is with Ratio Christi, a campus-based Evangelism and Apologetics ministry that seeks to equip both students and professors to make a reasoned defense of the Gospel. Aaron is the Ratio Christi campus director at the University of Utah. He is also the Utah and Idaho area director for Ratio Christi.

Sean McDowell, Apologetics Instructor and Podcaster.

Sean is a professor in the highly regarded Apologetics program at Biola University. He is also a regular instructor in the Cross-examined Instructor Academy (“CIA”), led by Frank Turek. Sean was one of my CIA instructors.

Sean also hosts a podcast: https://seanmcdowell.org/podcasts

Sean Interviews Nancy.

I subscribe to the YouTube channels of several Apologists, including Sean’s. The app on my phone recently served up the 3/25/2021 issue: Behind the Scenes with Nancy Pearcey: People, Books, and Life Experiences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIJ25Snz04

The interview is a delightful, wide-ranging conversation. I learned a lot about Francis Schaeffer, the fact-value divide, and Cultural Apologetics.

Conclusion.

Near the end of the interview, Sean calls Love Thy Body one of the top five books he recommends to students, including high school students. He says it is a roadmap for helping the reader gain clarity on dealing with LGBTQ issues.

I recommend the interview to everyone who is interested in campus ministries. It is well worth the one hour and two minutes.

I plan on writing a book review of Love Thy Body. Watch for it in a future post.

Thank you!

Michael Oswald

michael@msochartered.com

www.msochartered.com

Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.

May a State College Compel Professor’s Speech? No, Says U.S. Sixth Circuit.

Shawnee State University Can’t Force Professor to Use Speech with Which He Disagrees.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled unanimously that Shawnee State could not discipline a professor for failing to engage in speech with which he strongly disagrees.

The ruling in the case, Meriwether v. Hartop, was issued March 26,2021.https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0071p-06.pdf

Nicholas Meriwether, a philosophy professor and a Christian, sued Shawnee State, claiming that its mandate to use terms that conflict with biology infringed on his religious beliefs.

Excerpts from the Decision.

(I have copied below several key paragraphs from the decision. I have omitted most of the case citations to reduce the word count. You’re welcome!)

Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment.

Professor Meriwether is also a devout Christian. And, like many people of faith, his religious convictions influence how he thinks about “human nature, marriage, gender, sexuality, morality, politics, and social issues.” Meriwether believes that “God created human beings as either male or female, that this sex is fixed in each person from the moment of conception, and that it cannot be changed, regardless of an individual’s feelings or desires.” He also believes that he cannot “affirm as true ideas and concepts that are not true.”

Freedom of Speech Includes Freedom from Compelled Speech.

“Universities have historically been fierce guardians of intellectual debate and free speech.” But here, Meriwether alleges that Shawnee State’s application of its gender-identity policy violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The district court rejected this argument and held that a professor’s speech in the classroom is never protected by the First Amendment. We disagree: Under controlling Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent, the First Amendment protects the academic speech of university professors. (italics added).

The First Amendment protects “the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”. Thus, the government “may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees.” When the government tries to do so anyway, it violates this “cardinal constitutional command.”

Courts have often recognized that the Free Speech Clause applies at public universities. Thus, the state may not act as though professors or students “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the [university] gate.” Government officials violate the First Amendment whenever they try to “prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” and when they “force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”.

Together, Sweezy and Keyishian establish that the First Amendment protects the free-speech rights of professors when they are teaching. As a result, our court has rejected as “totally unpersuasive” “the argument that teachers have no First Amendment rights when teaching, or that the government can censor teacher speech without restriction.” And we have recognized that “a professor’s rights to academic freedom and freedom of expression are paramount in the academic setting.” Simply put, professors at public universities retain First Amendment protections at least when engaged in core academic functions, such as teaching and scholarship.

By forbidding Meriwether from describing his views on gender identity even in his syllabus, Shawnee State silenced a viewpoint that could have catalyzed a robust and insightful in-class discussion. Under the First Amendment, “the mere dissemination of ideas . . . on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.’”. Rather, the lesson of Pickering and the Court’s academic-freedom decisions is that the state may do so only when its interest in restricting a professor’s in-class speech outweighs his interest in speaking.

Start with Meriwether’s interests. We begin with “the robust tradition of academic freedom in our nation’s post-secondary schools.” That tradition alone offers a strong reason to protect Professor Meriwether’s speech. After all, academic freedom is “a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”. And the First Amendment interests are especially strong here because Meriwether’s speech also relates to his core religious and philosophical beliefs. Finally, this case implicates an additional element: potentially compelled speech on a matter of public concern. And “[w]hen speech is compelled . . . additional damage is done.”

Free Exercise of Religion

Meriwether next argues that as a public university, Shawnee State violated the Free Exercise Clause when it disciplined him for not following the university’s pronoun policy. We agree. The Constitution requires that the government commit “itself to religious tolerance.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civ. Rights Comm’n. Thus, laws that burden religious exercise are presumptively unconstitutional unless they are both neutral and generally applicable. To determine whether a law is neutral, courts must look beyond the text and scrutinize the history, context, and application of a challenged law. In this way, the Free Exercise Clause guards against “even subtle departures from neutrality on matters of religion.”

The Bottom Line of the Ruling.

Prof. Merriweather’s lawsuit now returns to the federal district court for a trial on the merits. Over 90% of civil suits settle prior to trial, so the odds are that this will as well.

On the other hand – Shawnee State may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the matter. If the Court does, then justice (from my point of view, in any event) will again be denied by being delayed.

Thank you!

Michael Oswald

michael@msochartered.com

www.msochartered.com

Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.

Start typing here…

There’s More Than One Way to “Trust the Science”

Frank Turek – Excellent Online Resource for Apologists.

There are several people who are, in my opinion, excellent resources for Apologists, including Frank Turek of Cross-Examined.org.

I visited Frank’s Twitter feed yesterday and found a link to a 5/16/2020 guest post by a Mr. Bob Perry. The post is titled: There’s More Than One Way to “Trust the Science.”

Why do Some Believe that Science and Faith are not Compatible?

Near the end of the post, Mr. Perry discusses Theology and explains how the materialist worldview resulted in Theology’s being deposed from its once-lofty perch.

“They used to call Theology the “Queen of the Sciences” for a reason. Theology identifies the Creator and sustainer of all things. But it does more than that. It makes the case that the mind of God is the basis for truth and reason. And that means His character undergirds every other scientific discipline.

How so?

All matter, mind, power, and morality have their foundation in the nature of God. And we are made in His image. So, it follows that our ability to reason and create are reflections of God’s character. Knowing that changes the way we understand everything else. In the doctrine of the Trinity and the eternal relationship between the Persons of the Godhead, we have the basis for love itself. It’s the model for all human relationships. And that means it is foundational to how we understand community, sacrifice, and cooperation.

If you want to have a robust view of chemistry, biology, anatomy, anthropology, psychology, sociology — you name the discipline — you must understand that theology ties them all together.

Today it sounds absurd to call theology a “science.” But that’s not because we’ve found something wrong with theology. It’s because we have accepted a corrupted and truncated view of science itself. We’ve limited it to matter, energy, space, and time. But we’ve lost our souls and spirits in the process.”

Conclusion.

I particularly appreciate the author’s phrase: “…a corrupted and truncated view of science itself.”

I strongly encourage everyone to read the entire post, found here:

https://crossexamined.org/theres-more-than-one-way-to-trust-the-science/

Thank you!

Michael Oswald

michael@msochartered.com

www.msochartered.com

Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.

The U.S. Supreme Court Agrees with the ACLU and the ADF in a Religious Liberty Case.

SCOTUS Rules 8-1 for the ADF’s Clients Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford.

I wrote on January 14, 2021 in The ACLU Sides with the ADF in a Religious Liberty Case – Yes, Really! about the religious liberty case of Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski.

In the span of just seven weeks (lightning speed for a SCOTUS case), the Court ruled for Chike and Joseph. The Court ordered the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal District Court to allow Chike and Joseph to finish the original trial.

The ruling was 8-1, with only Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting.

I think there is an excellent chance the parties will now find it mutually beneficial to negotiate a final settlement of all the issues.

The Bottom Line of the Ruling.

“Applying this principle here is straightforward. For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him. Because “every violation [of a right] imports damage,” Webb, 29 F. Cas., at 509, nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Conclusion – Why This Matters.

If SCOTUS had upheld the 11^th Circuit’s dismissal of the case, it would have sent a message to colleges that they could violate a student’s fundamental rights with impunity, simply by (as the college here did) giving in at the last minute and changing a policy that it should be willing to change as soon as it learns of the policy’s problems.

This rule bolsters the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other defenders of the weak against the strong.

Thank you!

Michael Oswald

michael@msochartered.com

www.msochartered.com

Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.

SCOTUS to the 9th Circuit – Read Our Lips!

Religious Gatherings Require Equal Protection, Part Two.

The Supreme Court on February 26, 2021 ordered the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to grant a petition ordering Santa Clara County, California to lift its ban on indoor church services.

In Gateway City Church, et., al, v Newsom, https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022621zr_1bo2.pdf the Court stated that “This outcome is clearly dictated” by its earlier ruling in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom.

South Bay United Pentecostal is the case in which the Court lifted California’s unconstitutional ban on indoor religious services.

Strict Scrutiny of Government Restrictions.

The county argued that its ban was allowed because it did not single out religious gatherings.

The 6-3 SCOTUS majority appears unimpressed by the County’s argument that it can completely deprive worshippers of their Free Exercise rights as long as they are treating other establishments equally badly.

Government restrictions on our fundamental Constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and free exercise of religion must be in furtherance of a compelling state interest and must use the least restrictive means necessary. That is what is called Strict Scrutiny test.

The county might have achieved a passing grade on the first part of the test, but they clearly flunked the second part.

Conclusion.

I’ll continue to keep you posted as the Supreme Court finishes out the second half of its 2020 – 2021 docket.

Thank you!

Michael Oswald

michael@msochartered.com

www.msochartered.com

Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.