This spring, the presidential races have seen several comments and pledges regarding the expansion of President Bush’s current faith-based initiatives program. Providing Federal funds to faith-based organizations is not a black and white issue. Many would reasonably argue that if money is already being spent, shouldn’t it be spent in the best way possible? But Christians and conservatives must be careful before eagerly embracing this idea.

When faith based organizations accept government money, they are not allowed to seek to convert others in any way, provide religious instruction, hire based on religion, or use funds for any program or initiative that could potentially have a religious purpose.

Are these regulations fair? When the government is funding an organization, it has the right to place restrictions on how those funds are used. There are always strings attached. We need to wrestle with the question of whether the money is worth this loss of autonomy.

The good works of faith-based organizations stem from their religious convictions. These groups must consider that accepting government money may force them to attempt positive social impact without their faith-based foundation. Perhaps faith-based organizations should say “Thanks, but no thanks” to federal funds.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recently commented, “The California electorate is coming into a new age realizing that [gay] marriage is an institution that supports family values, and it’s certainly one I support.” (click here for story)

Gay marriage supports family values?

This statement is preposterous to people who automatically associate family values with conservative Christianity. But it made me think - what are family values? Are they just political buzzwords, easily harnessed by politicians to sway naïve voters? As a Christian, my worldview is founded on God’s Word, so I must use Scripture as the basis for defining family values.

But this made me wonder where Villaraigosa and the gay community base their idea of supporting family values. I spent some time investigating, and all that I discovered was the slogan, “Love Makes a Family.” Is this a solid foundation?

Jesus says, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:12-13).

Homosexual couples who decide to raise children deny their children the balanced mentorship of a father and a mother. This flies in the face of true, selfless love. In fact, gay parents have founded special support groups, like the Children Of Lesbians And Gays Everywhere (COLAGE) to help kids cope with the issues they face growing up with two mommies or two daddies. They unwittingly admit that their view of love, parenting, and family is not really best for children.

While affection may attract two people to each other, only true love, modeled by Jesus’ example, can promote family values.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.” – John Adams

The Founding Fathers were well aware of John Locke’s extensive argument for an institutional separation between Church and State in his Letter Concerning Toleration. Yet Locke, like the Founders, contended that this did not imply a mutual exclusion between Religion and Government. “Magistracy,” he wrote, “does not oblige the magistrate to put off either Humanity or Christianity.” The main point of separating Church and State is so that one institution does not usurp the role of the other. While the terms sound similar, an integration of Religion and Government means that the government should not fear when religion enters the public discourse or influences policy, nor should religious Americans shun the political process or feel cut off from the public arena.

But how does this play out practically?

The Founders differentiated between these two “separations” in the laws and policies they enacted. Thomas Jefferson, for example, passionately opposed giving tax money to certain religious denominations because it would be “respecting an establishment of religion.” However, he supported allowing religious services to be held in government buildings and gave tax exempt status to churches in the District of Columbia. The difference was that these measures promoted religion in general, which is foundational to a stable civil society, without endorsing one particular religious establishment.

Christians should always oppose any policy or idea which restricts their ability to advance religious values in the public arena. The present trend to remove any trace of “religion” from political debate, public schools, and court opinions is not merely a healthy Church and State separation, but a malignant attempt to abolish Religion from Public Life. When Religion is instead welcomed into the political sphere, and all belief systems are advanced, we give the Truth the opportunity to free a culture captivated by empty philosophy.

It is the separation of Church and State, and the religious liberty that results, that fosters an environment for Christians to promote Truth in the public sphere. Christians must therefore not shy away from political involvement. Our political opinions should be based on Scriptural Truth because only God has a correct perspective on what is truly best for human society. We must actively advance those principles in conversation, voting, and influencing public officials. Let us not hide the lamp of Truth under a bowl, but rather put it on its stand, so that it gives light to everyone in the house.

“Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” – George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

I don’t usually find myself in agreement with the Americans United for a Separation of Church and State, considering that we tend to disagree about everything from how we interpret the Constitution to whether tomatoes are fruits or vegetables. So I was surprised when I read an angry article by Jeremy Leaming blasting the Religious Right and found a glimmer of truth. Leaming wrote, “[Washington] thought religion was important as a source of public and private virtue, but that doesn’t mean he wanted the government to force it on anyone.” How can I say that I agree with Jeremy Leaming and not lose my job with PFI? The answer lies in the fact that there is a profound distinction between a separation of Church and State and a separation of Religion and Government.

Most Americans, Christians and secularists alike, use these phrases interchangeably. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, alluding to Thomas Jefferson’s infamous “wall of separation between Church and State,” spoke of “the wall that was designed to separate religion and government” (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris). But are these concepts the same? I would argue that the Founders did in fact desire to create a wall of separation between the institution of the Church and the institution of the State. The prevention of Church control of the state as well as state involvement in the Church is essential for preserving individuals’ religious liberty and Church autonomy. Scripture itself gives very specific and different roles to the Church (Ephesians 4) and to the State (Romans 13), and neither is equipped to fulfill the others roles. The State should not assume the responsibility of winning souls, as in the state-controlled Church of England from which the Pilgrims fled, nor can the Church claim the power of “the sword,” as occurred during the Spanish Inquisition.

However, the Founders never wanted or anticipated this institutional independence to turn into a mutual exclusion. Unlike the separation of Church and State, the separation of Religion and Government not only restricts the free exercise of religion, it establishes the secular worldview in the public arena.

It is essential to understand the difference between these two “separations.” What we truly desire is the ability to bring our principles and values to the public sector, to be salt and light in ALL aspects of our society, public as well as private. So while we never want the institutions of Church and State to be integrated, we must continue to struggle against a separation of Religion and Government. Understanding this distinction will enable us to dispel the secular world’s false perceptions of Christians and allow us to build common ground so that our labor in this debate will bear more fruit.

As of last October, California teens need a parent’s signature to visit a tanning salon, because of the risk for developing skin cancer. This coming November, California residents will vote to mandate parental consent before a teenage girl receives an abortion as well, because of the associated health risks.

In fact, recently a 15-year-old named Sarah died four days after her abortion procedure caused bleeding and infection. The California law is named for her; it will require abortionists to notify a teen’s parent at least 48 hours before acting on the procedure. That way, parents can help their daughter get appropriate medical care, especially if the abortion goes badly. And sexual predators will have a tougher time forcing minors to have abortions in secret. (See Sarah’s Law Story)

Tragically, Sarah is not the only one to suffer abortion-induced harm; Planned Parenthood of Washington, D.C. is now being sued $50 million for an abortion that left a 13-year-old with serious medical conditions, including sterility. Ironically, this girl’s mother was the one who took her to the abortion clinic, to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape. (See Story)

So maybe even parental notification isn’t sufficient. Maybe years of research and heartbreaking cases will finally be enough to outlaw this “simple” procedure with life-threatening consequences. And then we can go after the tanning salons.

CHESTER, Pa. (AP, May 30) - A man passed out in a suburban Philadelphia casino and then, police say, was robbed of his winnings by another gambler. The 60-year-old man was collecting his slot machine winnings at Harrah’s in Chester on Thursday when police say he blacked out.

So. . . . I guess the robber got to this man’s cash before the casino could!  The difference here: The casino has a state license to steal but this customer doesn’t!  (Think about it: Why do you think they call slot machines one-armed bandits?)

City on the Hill Youth Leadership Conference - JULY 20-26, 2008 - is a fantastic opportunity for Pennsylvania high-school students ages 15 through 18 to participate in leadership training and learn the governmental process. It all takes place between the beautiful Lancaster Bible College campus and inside our state capitol, aka The Hill (Plus an mid-week evening of fun at Hersheypark!)

For seven action-packed days, about 50 high school students learn the legislative process by becoming state senators. They carry real-life legislation, learn public speaking skills, and become equipped to debate today’s critical issues.

Download an application or contact us at the Pennsylvania Family Institute offices: mail@pafamily.org or call 717-545-0600.

Here’s an excellent, must-read analysis by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, on the 4-3 majority ruling of the radical California Supreme Court that forced so-called same-sex marriage  on the people of California, against their expressed wishes (by the millions!).

The “I’m against same sex marriage but favor civil unions” position is the major unheralded casualty of the California Supreme Court decision redefining marriage. Politicians from across the political spectrum have taken refuge in this dodge, believing it allows them to navigate the treacherous shoals of powerful but divided public opinion about same sex marriage.

The court’s ruling has shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that civil unions are not a stable political or social compromise, however rational and reasonable that position may appear to be. Here is why. Read more…

This news out of Canada should serve as a warning that there are real consequences to religious liberty across our great commonwealth if a bill like House Bill 1400 would pass into law here!

HB 1400 would radically amend our state’s Human Relations Code by adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to public accommodation and employment discriminations laws. These types of laws have been used as a hammer against Christian ministries and Christian workers in Canada and in other states like New Jersey. In N.J., the Ocean Grove Campmeeting Association lost part of its tax exemption because it followed its own doctrine in refusing to allow a lesbian “civil union” (same-sex marriage) ceremony at its outdoor pavilion!

TAKE ACTION! If you are in Pennsylvania, call or E-mail your State Representative and State Senator to oppose HB 1400 (and its companion in the senate, SB 761). All people should be treated fairly under the law, but adding protected categories such as sexual orientation, would be used to try to stifle free speech and free exercise of religion i.e. our First Amendment! Our Citizen Action Center can help you find your contacts in the legislature.

What if. . .You were able to find a place where:

• You’ll find non-partisan information on candidates and issues that matter most to voters.

• You’ll find a voter’s guide free of any editorial comment from the hosts or sponsoring organization.

• No one will tell you who to vote for here — those decisions are uniquely your own.

There is such a place! Check it out before you cast your vote for President in Pennsylvania’s Primary Election, April 22nd!

. . . and don’t forget to vote; there are other seats up for grabs on your ballot: U.S. Rep in Congress, State Rep. in PA House, State Senator in some districts, and statewide races for Attorney General, Auditor General and State Treasurer.