Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission called the Donald Trump presidential campaign “reality television moral sewage.”

Trump countered on Twitter by calling Moore “a nasty guy with no heart.”

Moore, in turn, responded on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press Daily” by saying he agreed with Trump. “I am a nasty guy with no heart, which is why I need forgiveness of sins and redemption through the gospel of Jesus Christ,” he said.

And so it goes.

Read about Trump’s comments at Religion News Service.

Read about Moore’s respose at Baptist Press.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—About a week after Target, the nation’s second-largest discount retailer, announced transgender customers may use the restroom that “corresponds with their gender identity,” more than 895,000 people have signed a #BoycottTarget online petition launched by the conservative American Family Association. 

In its April 19 announcement, the Minneapolis-based retailer with 1,802 outlets said, “We believe that everyone—every team member, every guest and every community—deserves to be protected from discrimination and treated equally.”

The retailer, which had $74 billion in revenue last year, said it was motivated by legislation in about 15 states that would require individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with the sex listed on their birth certificate.

The Williams Institute, a think tank based at UCLA, estimates there are 300,000 transgender people, age 13 or older, in those 15 states. 

The day after Target’s statement, the American Family Association launched the boycott, saying: “Target’s policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims. Target’s dangerous new policy poses a danger to wives and daughters.”

The Mississippi-based association called on Target to install additional restrooms to be designated as single occupancy and unisex.

 But Media Matters for America, a nonprofit media watchdog, called the assertion that sex offenders exploit non-discrimination laws to gain access to the women’s room an “urban myth.” The group cited experts in 12 states with nondiscrimination laws to corroborate its claim. 

The issue of transgender civil rights has divided the Christian community. In South Dakota, David Zellmer, a Lutheran bishop, called on Gov. Dennis Daugaard to veto a bill requiring transgender people to use the restroom matching their sex at birth.

“This is a bill that ostracizes transgender students, putting them at risk in our schools,” Zellmer said. “Let us stand in their corner rather than against them.” Daugaard vetoed the bill March 1.

 “There are no easy answers,” Mark Yarhouse, a conservative evangelical psychologist and author of Understanding Gender Dysphoria, wrote on his blog. “What I recommend is a thoughtful, prayerful approach, one characterized by humility about what we know and do not know, and a response that embodies conviction, civility and compassion.” 

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Christian, Jewish and Islamic leaders joined to urge the Democratic and Republican national committees to protect religious minorities on the campaign trail.

Previous campaigns have targeted candidates, but Shoulder to Shoulder—a coalition of 32 religious denominations and organizations, including the Islamic Society of North America and the National Council of Churches—is aiming for the party heads.

“When we have people whose bigoted, hateful, Islamophobic, racist rhetoric challenges the very principles of American society, when they seek the highest office of the land, we stand sister to sister, brother to brother, shoulder to shoulder, and we say no,” said Jonah Pesner of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Correspondence to national party leaders

In letters to Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus and Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the group called on them to explicitly and unambiguously commit to combat discrimination against Muslims and to reinforce religious freedom in their party platforms.

“The parties have a job to patrol their neighborhoods,” said Ron Stief, chair of the Shoulder to Shoulder campaign. “What are their candidates saying? What are their delegates saying? What’s being written into the party platform? They need to be more concerned about patrolling their own neighborhoods than they are … about patrolling Muslim neighborhoods.”

Such rhetoric demands unequivocal action, Shoulder to Shoulder members said.

“When candidates for the highest office in our nation suggest banning Muslims from the U.S., or registering Muslim citizens, or surveillance of mosques without warrant, we are compelled to lift our voices collectively to say that this exclusivist vision of America harms us all,” Stief told the party leaders in his letter.

Denounce anti-Muslim rhetoric

Stief pointed to statements from former presidential candidate Jeb Bush and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, both Republicans, who have denounced anti-Muslim campaign rhetoric.

“I do not comment on what’s going on in the presidential election. I will take an exception today,” Ryan had told House Republicans after front-runner Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigration. “What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for, and more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”

For people of faith, there is a moral obligation to push back against rhetoric that breaches both the Constitution and religious scripture, coalition members said.

“We are unwilling to sublimate our faith for political ideology,” said Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. “And on the campaign trail this year, it’s pretty obvious that both the rhetoric and the policy proposals are having an impact on Muslim Americans.”

Fanning flames that lead to hate crimes

In December, the FBI reported hate crimes were falling in every category except those against Muslim Americans, which the Council on American-Islamic Relations says reached record highs after several major terrorist attacks. Experts say a wave of anti-Islam rhetoric in the election campaigns would only fan the flames.

The interfaith leaders emphasized the Muslim American community’s ongoing and vocal condemnations against terrorism. Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America, a leading Muslim jurist body, reissued the group’s 2005 fatwa against terrorism during the conference.

“None of us are going to stand still when (political candidates) attack any of us,” said Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, at the press conference. “It is the worst politics that they can do.”

NASHVILLE (BP)—Self-identified Christians in 30 states—from Alabama to Wyoming—say it’s a sin to lend money to someone who can’t afford to pay it back.

Most want the government to protect consumers from loans with excessive interest. Still, one Christian in six has taken out a high-interest payday loan, while few fellow believers know how such loans work or look to the Bible for guidance about fair lending.

Those are among the findings of a recent online survey of Christians’ views of payday lending from LifeWay Research. The Nashville-based research firm surveyed 1,000 self-identified Christians in 30 states, all of which have little or no regulation of payday loans.

Most Christians find payday loans impractical and morally questionable, said Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research. Many seem unaware the Bible addresses lending practices.

The survey, conducted Feb. 5-17, was sponsored by Faith for Just Lending, a national coalition of diverse and nonpartisan faith leaders opposed to predatory loans.

Among the key findings:

• Christians are no strangers to payday loans. Overall, 17 percent of Christians have taken payday loans—20 percent of Protestants and 12 percent of Catholics. About half of African-American Christians—49 percent—and a quarter of Hispanic Christians—24 percent—say they’ve taken out a payday loan.

• Most believe taking advantage of borrowers is sinful. But few say payday loans are immoral. Three-quarters (77 percent) of Christians say it’s sinful to lend money in a way that harms the borrower financially. They also describe payday loans as “expensive” (62 percent), “harmful” (37 percent) and “predatory” (33 percent). Still, more Christians say such loans are “helpful” (16 percent) than “immoral” (11 percent).

• About half (55 percent) say the “maximum reasonable” annual percentage rate (APR) for loans should be 18 percent or less. That includes 37 percent who say APR should be capped at 12 percent interest or less and another 18 percent who want to see a cap at 18 percent interest. Five percent say interest should be capped at 36 percent.

A typical two-week payday loan charges the equivalent of a 400 percent APR, according to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, a federal government agency tasked with consumer protection in the financial sector.

• Few Christians see a connection between faith and fair lending. Nine percent say the Bible has the most influence on how they view lending practices. That’s less than the news media (14 percent) but more than their church (1 percent). Politicians (1 percent) and national Christian leaders (less than 1 percent) have little influence on the issue of fair lending.

Instead, Christians most likely rely on their personal experience with loans (28 percent) or haven’t given much thought to the fairness of lending practices (23 percent).

• Most Christians believe the law should protect borrowers. Eighty-six percent agree when asked, “Do you believe laws or regulations should prohibit lending at excessive interest rates?” A similar number (94 percent) say lenders should only make loans with reasonable interest that can be repaid within the original loan period.

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau reports four out of five payday loans are rolled over for an extended time. In the LifeWay Research survey, 85 percent of Christians underestimate how often such loans are repeated.

• Few Christians say their church has a plan to help those who turn to payday loans. Only 6 percent of Christians say their church offers “guidance or assistance related to payday loans.” A third (34 percent) say their church offers no help. Six in 10 (61 percent) don’t know. Protestants (7 percent) are more likely to say their church offers help than Catholics (2 percent). Those who have taken a payday loan are more likely to say their church offers help (10 percent) than those who haven’t (5 percent.)

• Christians say churches should give counseling about payday loans. More than half (56 percent) want to see their church offer guidance to those with financial needs. And a quarter (27 percent) want churches to give gifts or loans to those in a financial crisis. But Christians are less interested in sermons about fair lending (17 percent) or advocacy (18 percent) for changes in laws or regulation.

Some Christians are interested in sermons about biblical principles for fair lending. They include those with evangelical beliefs (31 percent), African Americans (24 percent) and those who go to church once or more a week (24 percent).

Most Christians seem to want churches to offer a mixture of counseling and practical help. Eighty-three percent agree churches “should teach and model responsible stewardship, offering help to neighbors in times of crisis.” But 17 percent disagree.

Galen Carey, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, said payday loans offer short-term solutions but create longer-term problems. Such loans, he said, have a “devastating effect” on churches and communities.

“A payday loan may look like an answer to prayer—a way out of a financial crisis,” Carey said. “But too often, payday or title loans lead to long-term indebtedness, making a small problem into a large problem.”

McConnell suggests churches can play a key role in helping people who are caught in a cycle of payday loans. After all, he said, there’s likely someone in most churches who has taken out a payday loan in a time of crisis.

“Anyone can encounter financial hardships,” he said. “The question is whether the destitute are met with support or someone intent on profiting from their situation.”

Religious opponents of payday lending got a boost from the release of a new research confirming widespread Christian condemnation of the practice.

Read it at Baptist News Global.

A compromise may be possible between the federal government and faith-based nonprofits who claim the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate violates their religious beliefs.

Both sides responded positively April 12 to a Supreme Court proposal that appears to ensure employees’ access to free contraceptives while guaranteeing their religious nonprofit employers may opt out of the process entirely.

The dispute is the heart of Zubik v. Burwell, a Supreme Court case combining seven lawsuits that challenge the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for contraceptive coverage. Some of the plaintiffs, including East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University, resist involvement in providing so-called “morning after” drugs, which can terminate a pregnancy after conception.

The high court heard oral arguments in the Zubik case March 23. The court must determine if the contraceptive mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents the federal government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates it has a “compelling governmental interest” and does so in the “least restrictive” means possible.

The government previously offered religious nonprofits an opt-out procedure: The nonprofits would provide written notice of their religious objection. Then the burden of responsibility would shift to a third-party, the insurer, which would provide the contraceptives at no cost to the employer. But some of those nonprofits contended even providing written notice would make them indirectly complicit in the process.

Consider compromise

On March 29, the Supreme Court—apparently seeking to avoid a 4-4 tie decision in the absence of deceased Justice Antonin Scalia—asked attorneys on both sides of Zubik to consider a compromise. “The parties are directed to address whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners,” the order read.

The court received encouraging news from both sides April 12.

The nonprofits whose seven cases were consolidated into Zubik gave their full endorsement to the court’s proposal.

Simple answer: Yes

“This court has asked the parties to address whether ‘contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees,’” their supplemental brief stated. “The answer to that question is clear and simple: Yes.

“There are many ways in which the employees of a petitioner with an insured plan could receive cost-free contraceptive coverage through the same insurance company that would not require further involvement by the petitioner”—their employer.

“Moreover, so long as the coverage provided through these alternatives is truly independent of petitioners and their plans—i.e., provided through a separate policy, with a separate enrollment process, a separate insurance card, and a separate payment source, and offered to individuals through a separate communication—petitioners’ RFRA objections would be fully addressed,” the brief added.

Qualified endorsement

The Obama administration offered a more qualified endorsement of the court’s proposal.

The administration “mostly wants to keep the Affordable Care Act birth-control mandate as is, but signaled that it would reluctantly accept a modest change—even while arguing that it is not clear whether doing so would avoid ongoing court battles,” SCOTUSblog reported.

“The government brief … kept its argument close to what it has been all along,” SCOTUSblog said. “It contended that the changes it has previously made in the birth-control regulations provide religious non-profits with the assurance they need that they would not be involved in providing access to contraceptives for their employees. 

The government’s brief added, “If the court determines that the existing process for invoking the accommodation must be modified in some respect in light of (the nonprofits’) religious objections, it should make clear that the government may continue to require the relevant insurers to provide separate contraceptive coverage to (the non-profits’) employees” under other provisions in current regulations.

The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University in the case, provided comment from those schools’ presidents.

“This case is about the freedom of all Americans to follow their faith,” ETBU President Blair Blackburn said. “At ETBU, we are proud to be part of the long tradition of Baptists in America, just as Roger Williams advocated for religious freedom and separation of church and state in colonial America and founded Rhode Island and the First Baptist Church in America.

“We simply ask the court to recognize that ETBU is a conscientious objector, and that the federal government is insisting that we act as a conscientious collaborator.”

“At HBU, our faith animates everything we do, including our emphasis on academic excellence,” HBU President Robert Sloan said. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will let us continue to serve our students and others.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—On the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., dozens of faith leaders called on the U.S. presidential candidates to include a “living wage” for low-income workers in their political agendas.

The move came amid growing momentum for a wage hike and just days after state officials in New York and California acted to increase their minimum wage to $15 an hour.

“Today, we call on all those who are seeking the presidency of the United States to honor the legacy of Dr. King and stand in solidarity with all people who are seeking to achieve racial and economic justice in our society,” religious leaders said in an “Interfaith Call for Moral Action on the Economy,” released April 4. “By helping our nation’s most vulnerable workers achieve justice at work, the next president can lift millions out of poverty and secure a brighter future for all Americans.”

The campaign is focused especially on low-wage federal contract workers who cook for senators, clean the offices of generals and sell souvenirs to tourists at the Smithsonian Institution’s 19 museums and the National Zoo. Most say they make too little money to adequately care for their families.

The campaign seeks wages of at least $15 an hour, improved benefits and the ability to organize without retaliation.

Joseph Geevarghese, director of Good Jobs Nation, said it’s appropriate for faith leaders to link the cause of these workers with the legacy of King. The civil rights leader died in Memphis, Tenn., where he went to support a racial and economic equality campaign for striking sanitation workers.

Jim Winkler, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, is among the religious leaders supporting the effort to seek a pledge from candidates to help the working poor.

“This election is fundamentally about whether the next president is willing to take transformative executive action to close the gap between the wealthy and workers—many of whom are women and people of color,” he said.

Supporters of the campaign call the U.S. government “America’s biggest low-wage creator,” with more than 2 million jobs through federal contracts, grants and loans.

“When low-wage workers don’t make enough to provide for their most basic needs, it is not just an economic issue—it is a moral crisis,” said Jason Kimelman-Block, director of Bend the Arc Jewish Action.

The new phase of the ongoing campaign comes as fast-food restaurant employees plan to strike in 300 cities and other low-wage workers intend to protest April 14.

Faith and labor groups worked together to encourage President Obama to make changes for low-wage workers. He has issued executive orders that call for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 and giving paid leave to federal contractors.

Leaders of those groups hope the next president will expand on those measures. Republican candidates Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich have not supported raising the federal minimum wage. Democratic candidates have supported it, with Bernie Sanders pushing for a $15 wage and Hillary Clinton supporting an increase from $7.25 to $12.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and leaders of the New York Legislature announced an agreement that gradually will raise the state minimum wage to $15 by 2021, and the California Legislature passed a bill that will raise the state minimum wage to $15 by 2022.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (RNS)—Most adults in the United States say religious liberty is declining in America, and Christians face more intolerance than ever. But nearly four in 10 also say Christians “complain too much about how they are treated,” a new LifeWay Research survey reveals.

The Nashville-based researchers surveyed 1,000 Americans in September 2013 and again in September 2015. The 2015 survey was conducted a few weeks after Kentucky clerk Kim Davis served five days in jail and made international headlines for refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples.

The survey found:

• 63 percent of U.S. adults say Christians face increasing intolerance, up from 50 percent in 2013.
• 60 percent say religious liberty is declining, up from 54 percent.
• 43 percent say American Christians complain too much about how they are treated, up from 34 percent.

“The significant increase is worth attention,” said Ed Stetzer, executive director of LifeWay Research. It is about the rights of faith-based institutions such as schools, colleges and charities to hire according to their faith, “not about a faux ‘War on Christmas,’” he explained.

However, while Christian organizations are fighting for their liberties, “some Christians are whining about Starbucks’ red cups” that did not say “Merry Christmas” on the side, he added.

“There are real issues here, but Christians need to pick their battles like discerning adults, not complaining children,” said Stetzer.

The survey didn’t ask about  business owners’ rights, based on their religious beliefs, to refuse gay couples’ requests to rent a venue or purchase cakes or flowers for a wedding. The issues of employment and public accommodations for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are being fought in several state legislatures.

And the Supreme Court is wrestling with a case in which faith-based groups refuse to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to allow their insurer to cover free contraception for employees.

LifeWay found 64 percent of Christians say religious liberty is on the decline, including:

• 71 percent of self-identified evangelicals.
• 70 percent of people who say they attend worship at least once a week.
• 56 percent of Catholics.
• 55 percent of other Protestants.

In addition, 65 percent of people of other faiths, including Jews, Muslims and other minority religions, agree. Stetzer noted even 46 percent of “nones”—people who claim no religious identity—also saw religious liberty declining.

Seven in 10 Christians—including 82 percent of evangelicals and 76 percent of people who say they attend church at least once a week—say they face increasing intolerance. However, only 43 percent of people of other faiths and 48 percent of religiously unaffiliated agree.

Those who say Christian complaints about treatment are “excessive” include:

• 38 percent of Christians.
• 39 percent of Americans of other faiths.
• 59 percent of nones.
• 53 percent of Americans—secular or religious—who rarely or never attend worship.

Cathy Lynn Grossman is senior national reporter for RNS.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The Supreme Court appears to be seeking a compromise that would let religious nonprofit groups avoid any involvement in offering insurance coverage for contraceptives while also ensuring that employees get the coverage.

The justices on March 29 asked lawyers on both sides in seven cases to submit additional briefs on the subject within the next few weeks.

Seeking to avoid deadlock

It was a clear indication at least one member of the court—most likely Justice Anthony Kennedy—is seeking a way out of a 4-4 decision that would set no national precedent. The high court issued two such divided opinions in eight days, following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last month.

“The parties are directed to address whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners,” the order read.

The cases, including one filed by the Little Sisters of the Poor, test whether religiously affiliated employers such as charities, hospitals and universities must file a form or write a letter to get out of offering free coverage for birth control. The groups say even that level of involvement violates their religious beliefs, and some—including East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University—maintain the work-around still makes them complicit in providing drugs they assert induce abortions.

“This is an excellent development. Clearly the Supreme Court understood the Sisters’ concern that the government’s current scheme forces them to violate their religion,” said Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

“We look forward to offering alternatives that protect the Little Sisters’ religious liberty while allowing the government to meet its stated goals.”

If the compromise floated by the high court provides enough cover for the nonprofits, it also would represent a victory for the government and advocates of reproductive rights, because workers would get free coverage once the regulation is revised.

Divided court

The eight justices appeared equally divided during oral arguments, raising the likelihood they would deadlock over the challenge by religious non-profits to the federal government’s so-called “contraceptive mandate,” which grew out of the Affordable Care Act.

A split in the contraceptive mandate case particularly would be embarrassing; federal appeals courts are divided on the issue, with most upholding the government mandate but one siding with the religious groups.

The justices could decide to hear the case again when they are back to full strength. But with President Obama and Senate Republicans at loggerheads over the nomination of federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, it could take another year or more.

Seeking a different accommodation

The two-page order from the court outlined a possible solution that would, in essence, suggest a different accommodation than the one the Obama administration devised and turn the justices into policymakers.

“Petitioners would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the federal government, or to their employees,” the order said.

“At the same time, petitioners’ insurance company—aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separately notify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage.”

Richard Wolf writes for USA Today. 

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The 2016 Republican presidential campaign boils with anti-immigrant rhetoric, but candidates’ harsh proposals don’t resonate with most Americans, particularly religious believers and young adults, new research shows.

Analysis by the Public Religion Research Institute finds many people reject harsh proposals such as building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, said Dan Cox, director of research for the institute.

Researchers looked at attitudes toward immigrants, immigration reform and a possible path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who already are here. They drew from 42,000 interviews conducted for the institute’s American Values Atlas between April 2015 and early January 2016.

Analysts found 50 percent of Americans have a favorable view of newcomers from other countries and believe they strengthen U.S. society, rather than saying they threaten “traditional American customs and values” (34 percent).

Significant religious differences with groups dividing by race and ethnicity

Among most minority religious groups—such as Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, as well as many black and Hispanic members of major Christian groups—more than two in three say the growing number of newcomers strengthens American society.

White Christians are less positive.

• White evangelical Protestants overall are the most likely to view immigrants as a threat (53 percent). Less than a third (32 percent) see newcomers as an asset to America. However, this group is split sharply by age, with 55 percent of young adults favoring newcomers.
• Among white mainline Protestants and white Catholics, slightly more than four in 10 hold a favorable view of immigrants, and roughly the same percentage see a threat.
• Mormons and nonwhite Protestants, with the exception of black Christians, registered slightly higher favorable views on newcomers and their cultural impact.

Findings among the general U.S. public

The general public in every state except South Dakota favors an immigration reform policy that includes a path to citizenship, the study finds.

• 62 percent—including most Democrats and Republicans—say it should be allowed if immigrants meet certain requirements.
• 19 percent want to see undocumented immigrants identified and deported.
• 15 percent say they should get legal residency but not citizenship.

Partisan politics make a difference, too.

Among Republicans, 32 percent overall don’t see a threat, including 51 percent of young adults, under age 30. Among Independents, 52 percent view immigrants favorably, and 63 percent of Democrats hold favorable views toward immigrants.

But despite differences on the cultural impact of newcomers, Cox sees “remarkably broad agreement on the issue of policy.”

Among all those surveyed who say they see newcomers as a threat, only 46 percent favor a path to citizenship and 13 percent say they should be able to become permanent legal residents. Another 37 percent want to see undocumented immigrants deported, according to the report.

Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz have quite similar policy offerings—blocking entry and calling for mass deportations—while Ohio Gov. John Kasich “is more warmly disposed toward reform,” Cox said.

The survey indicates the campaign rhetoric “doesn’t seem to be moving the needle at all” on changing people’s views, he said.

Still, for those who already agree with the candidates, the rhetoric is “very animating and likely to get people to the polls,” he added.

Cathy Lynn Grossman is senior national reporter for RNS.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court considered arguments March 23 in a case that challenges whether the government can require religious nonprofit organizations to accept a portion of Obamacare they claim makes them indirectly complicit in providing access to contraceptive drugs.

Zubik v. Burwell combines seven cases that challenge required coverage of contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act, including drugs some religiously affiliated nonprofits assert cause abortions.

Specifically, the case challenges the government’s accommodation procedure that allows religious nonprofits to avoid paying or contracting for contraception by shifting the responsibility to a third party.

The court will to determine if the accommodation violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the federal government from substantially burdening free exercise of religion unless it can demonstrate it has a “compelling interest” and is using the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.

Baptists on both sides

Baptists are represented on both sides of the dispute. Challengers to the accommodation procedure include East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University and GuideStone Financial Services of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In January, three Southern Baptist entities—the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the International Mission Board and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—filed a brief urging the high court to rule the accommodation violates religious freedom.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, on the other hand, filed a friend-of-the-court brief along with Douglas Laycock, professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, that supports the government’s effort to accommodate religion.

BJC argues no ‘substantial burden’

The BJC brief asserts the far-reaching claims of the nonprofits can harm religious liberty.

Jennifer Hawks and Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty talk with Walter Dellinger, a law professor at Duke University and former U.S. solicitor general. (Photo / Jordan Edwards / Baptist Joint Committee)“The religious groups have been relieved of providing, paying for—or even appearing to approve of—services they find objectionable. But they aren’t taking ‘yes’ for an answer,” said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee. “Their claims cannot thwart the government’s regulation of secular insurance companies to make sure those services are delivered.”

“The government has provided a careful system of exemptions that responds to religious objections about contraception without depriving thousands of employees important health care benefits,” said Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee. “This is the win-win solution the Court pointed to in the Hobby Lobby case.”

The BJC brief argues the procedure—which requires written notification of a religious objection—does not amount to a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The organizations have been wholly exempted from providing contraception themselves, and the objection is to the government’s efforts to deliver contraception separately through secular insurers, with segregated funds and segregated communications.

Applying RFRA’s balancing test

The BJC and Laycock have worked more than 25 years—often together—to enact, implement and defend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which provides legal protection against government actions that substantially burden the exercise of religion. The BJC chaired the diverse coalition of organizations that pushed for the RFRA legislation, providing a high legal standard for all free exercise claims without regard to any particular religious practice.

The statute was intended to restore the “compelling interest” standard, which the Supreme Court used prior to its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith. The law creates a balancing test between substantial burdens on religion and the compelling interests of the government.

The BJC brief responds to the claim that courts must give absolute deference to the religious objectors. While deference should be given to religious understandings, too much deference produces its own set of problems, the brief contends.

“Absolute deference to claimants would produce absurd results that would discredit the cause of religious liberty,” the brief states. It notes a standard of absolute deference would go beyond this case and apply to any religious claim.

Additionally, the brief highlights the importance of specific legislative and administrative exemptions for the protection of religious liberty. The government must be able to draw reasonable lines when it creates religious exemptions, which exist in local, state and federal law.

“If legislatures and administrative agencies cannot enact a narrow religious exemption without it being turned into a much broader religious exemption, many of them will not enact any religious exemptions at all, and many existing religious exemptions will be repealed,” the brief states.

Religious nonprofits ‘face a dilemma’

During arguments before the court, Paul Clement, representing those challenging the accommodation, told the justices the religious nonprofits “face a dilemma.” They can abide by their religious beliefs and pay millions of dollars of penalties or obey the government, he said.

“My clients would love to be a conscientious objector, but the government insists they be a conscientious collaborator,” Clement said.

Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, told the court the religious organizations have no objection “to signing an opt-out form,” but they do object to what amounts to an authorization form for coverage of abortion-causing and other contraceptives.

Donald Verrilli, the current solicitor general, argued on behalf of the federal government the accommodation constitutes a “sensible balance” between religious freedom and the government’s interest.

Compiled from reporting by Cherilyn Crowe of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and Tom Strode of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission for Baptist Press.

WASHINGTON—ISIS is guilty of committing genocide against Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and Syria, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said March 17.

Christians, Yazidis and Shiite Muslims are victims of genocide and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the group variously known as the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL or Daesh, Kerry asserted.

A broad-based coalition of religious groups and human rights organizations—including the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, led by Randel Everett, former executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas—urged the United States to declare as genocide the systematic killing of religious minorities in Iraq and Syria.

For only the second time in history, US has done the right thing, declared an ongoing genocide. Thx @JohnKerry. #genocide #stopISISgenocide

— 21Wilberforce (@21Wilberforce) March 17, 2016

“The most brutal reality imaginable”

“Today, the United States stood with millions in Iraq and Syria who have experienced the most brutal reality imaginable—genocide,” said Frank Wolf, a distinguished senior fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative and former U.S. congressman.

Everett credited Wolf with bringing about the genocide declaration.

“Frank Wolf’s leadership has been an invaluable asset to the only two instances in which an active situation has been declared genocide, first in Darfur in 2004 and now in Iraq and Syria,” Everett said.

In December, Congress included in its omnibus bill a provision giving the secretary of state 90 days to report whether the persecution by ISIS constitutes genocide. The House of Representatives unanimously passed a nonbinding resolution March 14 condemning ISIS actions as genocide.

“My purpose in appearing before you today is to assert that, in my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yazidis, Christians and Shi’a Muslims,” Kerry said in a news conference at the U.S. State Department.

“Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology and by actions in what it says, what it believes and what it does. Daesh is also responsible for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing directed at these same groups and, in some cases, also against Sunni Muslims, Kurds and other minorities.”

It is my judgment that #Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas it controls, including Yazidis, Christians, Shia.

— John Kerry (@JohnKerry) March 17, 2016

Hold perpetrators accountable

Kerry urged the international community to hold the group accountable and called for an independent investigation regarding crimes against humanity.

“One element of genocide is the intent to destroy an ethnic or religious group in whole or in part. We know that Daesh has given some of its victims the choice of abandoning their faith or being killed and that, for many, is the choice between one kind of death and another,” Kerry said.

“The fact is that Daesh kills Christians because they are Christians, Yazidis because they are Yazidis and Shi’a because they are Shi’a. … Its entire worldview is based on eliminating those who do not subscribe to its perverse ideology.”

Kerry voiced hope that victims of persecution would take comfort in knowing “the United States recognizes and confirms the despicable nature of the crimes that have been committed against them.”

On his Twitter feed, Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted: “Glad the Administration is at last ready to call ISIS destruction of Christian and Yazidi communities what it is: genocide. #NeverAgain.”

Glad the Administration is at last ready to call ISIS destruction of Christian and Yazidi communities what it is: genocide. #NeverAgain

— Russell Moore (@drmoore) March 17, 2016

Remember the lost and suffering

Kerry’s assertion of genocide emphasizes the depth of the tragedy, stressed Elijah Brown, executive vice president of the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative.

“The declaration of genocide is a solemn occasion that should give us pause to first and foremost remember those who have been lost and those who continue to suffer at the hands of the Islamic State,” Brown said. “Thousands of Christians continue to live in the harsh conditions of internal displacement, face limited education and vocational opportunities and hold onto hope in the midst of extreme difficulty. …

“This significant marker for justice is a testament that policy makers, religious leaders, civil society actors and those being persecuted themselves can join together in solidarity against the voices of violence to empower movements that advance human rights and religious freedom as a universal right,” he said.

“When people of goodwill pray together, work together and lift their voice, the forces of injustice can be counteracted,” he added, noting the declaration confirms that fact.

“This is a significant step, and I look forward to working with the many who have made this possible in ongoing efforts to indict those who have perpetrated these crimes, seek rehabilitation for those who have suffered, and pursue the full restoration of peace in both Iraq and Syria.”

“An important step”

International Christian Concern, a human rights watchdog group focused on the persecution of Christians, expressed gratitude for the genocide declaration. Nate Lance, the organization’s advocacy manager expressed gratitude Kerry identified ISIS actions as genocidal.

“Their killing, enslavement, human trafficking, rape and destruction of Christian and religious minority communities in Iraq and Syria can be classified as nothing else,” Lance said.

“Although there is uncertainty and disagreement regarding next steps, having the genocide designation in place raises international concern and solidarity against ISIS to the highest level. This is an important step in defeating this group and restoring freedom to the communities that they have terrorized.”

Douglas Napier, executive director of the Alliance Defending Freedom International, termed Kerry’s declaration “an important first step in the necessary process by the United States, the UN and the international community to stop the killing in the Middle East.”

Jerry Johnson, president of National Religious Broadcasters, likewise commended Kerry for the announcement.

“Now the United States is morally compelled to act in defense of our brothers and sisters whose lives and cultural heritage are being viciously assaulted simply because of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” said Johnson, former president of Criswell College in Dallas.

A secular humanist organization—the Center for Inquiry—joined religious leaders and human rights activists in applauding Kerry’s declaration.

“The rights to freedom of religion, belief and expression are fundamental and universal and must be protected for all individuals and groups—especially those facing threats or violence,” said Michael DeDora, public policy director for the center.

ISIS is “clearly engaged in the systematic destruction of ancient religious minority communities in Iraq and Syria,” he added.

Come together

“The international community must put aside theological differences and come together to strongly engage in efforts to defeat the Islamic State and aid their victims,” he said. “We applaud Secretary Kerry for doing the right thing and hope his decision prompts greater collaboration and sincere endeavors to end the Islamic States’ genocide against religious minorities.”

In February 2015, the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative produced Edge of Distinction, a report describing the Islamic State’s genocide revealed on a fact-finding trip to the region.

Wilberforce Initiative staff were lead authors for widely signed International Religious Freedom Roundtable letters in October 2015 and February 2016 and advocated within Congress, the State Department, the Obama Administration and across multiple religious denominations and numerous grassroots activists for a declaration of genocide. Through the Ruth Project, Wilberforce Initiative continues to support an education program that helps Syrian refugee children in Lebanon who have fled, in part, the violence of the Islamic State.

Watch: Secretary Kerry’s Remarks on Daesh and Genocide