A 2025 law that banned non-official flags did not include a penalty for violations. In response, Boise had passed a loophole resolution to make the LGBTQ flag an official flag. Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel’s founder and chairman, explained that the bill, which passed with a House vote of 58-11 and a Senate vote of 26-8, closed that loophole.  “Idaho’s law strictly defines ‘official’ government expression via flags and closes a loophole whereby municipalities could embrace a contentious ideology as government expression,” Staver said.

“Colorado continues to place itself on the wrong side of the law by forcing Coloradans to speak against their conscience,” said Frampton. “As the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed this week when it ruled against another Colorado law in Chiles v. Salazar, the government shouldn’t be able to censor speech or force people to speak views they disagree with. We are asking the appeals court to protect the ability of Coloradans to openly express their beliefs on a hotly debated issue.”

“Plaintiffs have a bona fide religious conviction that they must teach and preach about all areas of life,” the complaint states. “No area of life is exempt from the reach of Scripture. And teaching is not limited to generalized principles. Proper teaching includes a precise application of scriptural principles to every area of life. This includes the spiritual duty to teach about issues of life that may arise in the public arena.”

“But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” the court’s opinion stated. “It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth... any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

“The idea that an employer can fire an employee for simply voicing a religious belief, after being invited to do so, is chilling,” said Cliff Martin, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute. “No employee should have to hide their faith in order to keep their job.”

During the conversation with the student, the vice principal said it was permissible for the school to allow students to leave campus during school hours to participate in anti-ICE protests, but she maintained that the student’s distribution of religious literature was not permitted. “The District’s own officials have articulated a policy of viewpoint discrimination with unusual candor,” the ACLJ’s letter states. “The school has opened a forum for student expression during non-instructional time and has selectively excluded a religious viewpoint from that forum.”

Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute which defended Olivier in his suit, celebrated the ruling. “This is not only a win for the right to share your faith in public,” Shackelford said, “but also a win for every American’s right to have their day in court when their First Amendment rights are violated.”

In a Facebook post, Franklin Graham noted how he looked up to Norris while growing up. “Chuck Norris was an incredible athlete and a great American—and growing up, he was one of my heroes. Part of his Christian testimony was that he rededicated his life to Christ as a young adult at one of my father Billy Graham's Crusades. He will be greatly missed. Join me in praying for his family.”

“It is tragic—and unacceptable—that a child who recanted her allegations and yearns to be home remains separated from her family, resulting in extended and severe mental distress,” Sancho continued. “The element of religious discrimination is also unmistakable in this case. The state labeled the family as religious extremists solely because of their active practice of their Christian faith.  

Dr. Stuart Weir, head of CARE for Scotland, a Christian policy group, also expressed his support for Parliament’s “positive and truly compassionate” decision. “If you look at countries where assisted suicide is legal, the same troubling and distressing pattern emerges: numbers increase year-on-year, and categories of eligibility are widened,” Weir said.

When the church forgets Israel, arrogance often follows—and arrogance breeds antisemitism. Church history bears painful witness to this. Yet antisemitism is again on the rise. Replacement theology, by denying Israel’s place in God’s plan, risks fueling this hatred anew. Antisemitism is an affront to God’s heart. His love for Israel has never expired, and Genesis 12:3 still stands: “I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you.” Antisemites hate what God loves.

First Liberty Institute filed suit on Feb. 17 on Rivera’s behalf, requesting that KIPP Antioch College Prep Elementary School remove the final warning letter from his personnel file, stop discriminating against individuals for their religious beliefs in hiring and evaluating employees, and commit to accommodating religious employees who wish to refrain from reading any materials to students that violate their faith. 

Moody Bible Institute only hires those who agree with Moody’s Doctrinal and Positional Statements. For example, an employee must agree with core Biblical doctrines such as the Trinity, the infallibility of the Bible, Jesus’ divinity, the virgin birth, the Gospel and the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Those who are employed must also be part of a local church and abstain from sex outside of marriage and not condone or affirm transgenderism or homosexuality. 

Does our view of Israel really matter? Yes—because it relates to the credibility of Scripture and the character of God. A theology that redefines God’s promises inevitably reshapes how His people are viewed. The conviction that God will yet fulfill His promises to Israel is not political; it is Biblical. And in a world where antisemitism is again rising, it is a conviction Christians cannot afford to surrender.

In an article in the National Interest, Jason Brodsky, policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran, said the new leadership points to a “dark turn for the Islamic republic,” while Janatan Sayeh of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said Khamenei “embodies his father’s legacy and all of the Islamic Republic’s defining pathologies: theocratic rule, human rights abuses, destabilizing foreign policy ambitions, and kleptocracy."