When the Washington Supreme Court ruled against florist Barronelle Stutzman, many Christian leaders wrote that this was an important watershed moment for religious liberty in America. Although she served same-sex couples for years, she declined to provide flowers for a same-sex ceremony. That was enough for a court case that affects not only her florist business but also her personal assets.

Denny Burk is a Southern Baptist theologian and pastor who gave expert testimony in this case. He thought he would simply enter in the record what Southern Baptists believe about marriage. Instead, he sat across the table from lawyers who spent their time asking hostile questions in an effort to discredit what Southern Baptists believe about marriage. He concluded that, “others will use this precedent to punish the rest of us.”

David French wrote: “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force—as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced. That disturbance was the Washington Supreme Court’s oppressive ruling in State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers.”

Rod Dreher says that: “What they do to her today, they will do to you tomorrow. Count on it. Will you and I have the courage to pay the price Barronelle Stutzman is paying? Will you and I at least stand with her and help her pay the financial cost her persecutors will levy on her?”

Terry Mattingly writes about what he calls the “journalistic Grand Unified Theory of Everything.” You can sum it up in five words: “The Religious Right Must Lose.” This statement summarizes how the secular media and many in government feel about Christians and religious convictions.

That is why we need to pay more attention to religious liberty cases and support organizations fighting for your religious liberty.

Whenever the Pope speaks, it is worth considering what he says whether you are a Catholic or not. His worldview influence is considerable, and so we should pay attention to his words.

That is why I am concerned about his recent address on Muslim terrorism. He argued that: “Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist.” If his point was to say that not all Christians and not all Muslims are terrorists, that is obvious. It is a self-evident fact.

He also seemed to be arguing that terrorism is the result of economic inequalities rather than religious beliefs. Not only is that not true, it would come as a surprise to some of the rich, well-educated radical Muslim leaders and to some of the oil-rich regions that have been state sponsors of terrorism.

The Pope believes that all religions promote peace, and it is only a few that take a religion in the wrong direction. He said: “There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions—and with intolerant generalizations they become stronger because they feed on hate and xenophobia.”

The problem for the peace-loving Muslims is the fact that radical Muslim terrorists point to many verses in the Qur’an and to the life of Muhammad to justify their terrorist actions. Our world today does not have to deal with Christian terrorists or Jewish terrorists. And even if they existed, there would be appropriate verses in the Bible to condemn their actions. Islam does not find itself in the same situation.

Once again, let’s state the obvious. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslim. Radical Muslim leaders are quoting from the Qur’an and calling for their fellows Muslims to emulate the lifestyle of the leader of Islam. That is why it is not helpful to say that: “Muslim terrorism does not exist.”

Last week, I received my Yale News email announcing that Calhoun College was going to change its name to honor Grace Murray Hopper. I had two questions. Why did it take so long? And, who is Grace Hopper?

Now, you may not really care about the renaming of a college at Yale University, but stick with me for a moment. The college is named for John C. Calhoun, who served a as secretary of war, secretary of state, and a vice president under two presidents. But he was also a pro-slavery fanatic. When I was at Georgetown graduate school, one of my professors required that we read some of the writings by John Calhoun. I was shocked.

So it is a bit amazing that it took until 2017 for the administration, faculty, and students to remove his name. But the university faces a problem. Many of the other colleges are named for people who owned slaves. They would be Timothy Dwight, Jonathan Edwards, Benjamin Silliman, John Davenport, and Ezra Stiles. Once you start down this road, there may be no stopping it.

One of the arguments for removing Calhoun’s name was that “he has no strong association with our campus.” Huh? Calhoun graduated valedictorian from Yale College in 1804. Grace Hopper never graduated from Yale College, but only has graduate degrees from Yale University.

This is hardly just an issue for Yale University. Last year, Princeton University removed a painting of President Woodrow Wilson. Georgetown University renamed two buildings named for presidents who had a part in selling slaves. University of North Carolina changed the name of Saunders Hall because it was named for a Ku Klux Klan organizer. Washington and Lee University removed a Confederate flag from its chapel, even though General Robert E. Lee served as the university’s president and is buried beneath the chapel.

I suspect we are just seeing the beginning of the renaming of lots of buildings on college campuses.

We may have three co-equal branches of government, but they aren’t equal in their output. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, Congress passes a few dozen significant laws each year while the executive branch puts out thousands and thousands of rules and regulations.

There are lots of reasons for the difference, including staff, funding, and workload. There are nearly 200 federal agencies with more than four million employees. The federal budget is $3.8 trillion. By contrast, Congress has a budget that is a small fraction of that and has to make due with limited staff.

What makes this disparity even worse is the sad fact that Congress isn’t in session as much as many citizens might think. And when Congress is in session, it usually convenes on a Tuesday-through-Thursday schedule. That means that members of Congress might only be in Washington about one-third of the year.

Most of us like the idea of a “citizen legislator” and reject the trend of a person being elected to Congress and staying for decades. It’s a great vision, but it runs up against the federal bureaucracy that works 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. If Congress is going to provide oversight over the executive branch, members of Congress need to be there more than one-third of the time.

Of course, members of Congress have lots of obligations back home that range from meeting with constituents to raising money for their next campaign. While they might risk being labeled as “out of touch” by spending more time in Washington, they might gain respect from their constituents by getting more done while they are in Congress.

Too often unelected bureaucrats run our government because they are given very little oversight from Congress. Unless we change the workload and work schedule of Congress, that will continue. It’s time for Congress to get to work.

Tony Perkins asks a good question. “If NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell thinks football unites us, then why is his league taking political sides?” The National Football League has had trouble keeping TV viewers this year. There are many theories for the rating drop ranging from concern about concussions to the ongoing Colin Kaepernick controversy.

So, you would think that the NFL would focus on how to attract more viewers for next season. But shortly after the Super Bowl in Houston, the NFL decided to once again wade into the culture wars. The NFL warned Texas not to pass the Texas Privacy Act or face the fact that no future Super Bowl would be held in Texas.

The irony of this is that the Super Bowl this year was held in a city that overwhelmingly rejected the very legislation that the NFL says it supports. Nevertheless, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy warned: “If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events.”

It is also possible that the NFL is stirring up controversy for no reason. Texas legislators explain that Senate Bill 6 would not conflict with NFL policy since it would allow individual teams and stadiums to set their own policies. Texas Governor Greg Abbott doesn’t seem too concerned. After he read an article about the NFL threat, he responded with this tweet: “NFL decision makers also benched Tom Brady last season. It ended with NFL handing the Super Bowl trophy to Brady.”

Here’s a suggestion. Let the governor and Texas legislators focus on how to protect its citizens. And let the NFL commissioner and his staff focus on how to attract back the many viewers who turned off NFL games last year. The NFL would be wise to avoid the culture wars and stick to football.

One of the many dividing lines between progressives and conservatives is their belief in the efficiency and effectiveness of government bureaucracies. Liberals may have some misgivings about how they are treated at the Department of Motor Vehicles or by the TSA at airports. Nevertheless, they tend to believe that government is the solution to most social and political problems.

Conservatives are usually more skeptical about government and support the private sector over the public sector. But their reactions seem tempered by the fact that they generally have high respect for people in the military and law enforcement.

This difference in perspective concerning federal bureaucracies shows up in many debates, including the current one about vetting refugees and other immigrants. In a recent column, Kevin Williamson asks: “who seriously thinks that our public institutions are up to the job of properly investigating tens of thousands (or more) refugees, asylum-seekers, and ordinary immigrants every year? If Donald Trump’s temporary order seems to you unreasonable, ask yourself what the next-best option is and how much confidence we should have in it.”

When I read or hear someone assure us that the government screening of refugees and immigrants is very effective, I want to ask them some questions. Have you been to the DMV or the VA recently? Have you visited an immigration office recently? Sometimes you find a well-run organization, but far too often you probably walked out of a government building shaking your head because it is hardly run efficiently and effectively.

Add to this the reality that the information from some of these countries for these refugees and immigrants is sketchy at best. That is why I think some are more trusting of the federal bureaucracy than is warranted.

When is a misstatement or an exaggeration an actual lie? This is hardly a hypothetical question. Critics and media organizations have accused the last two presidents and the current one of lying to the American people. You might remember such phrases as: “Bush lied, people died” and “Obama continually lied about Obamacare.” Now critics claim that President Trump and his administration frequently lie.

When Kelly Ann Conway talked about the “Bowling Green terrorist massacre,” was it lie? She says it was a slip of the tongue. She meant to say Bowling Green terrorists. For the sake of argument, let’s assume she misspoke. If so, it wouldn’t be any different than candidate Obama saying he visited 57 states. It’s an inaccurate misstatement but isn’t a deliberate lie.

Sometimes people misremember an event from a news report. Donald Trump said he remembered thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. That did not happen. But that is different than Hillary Clinton telling the media that she arrived in Kosovo under gunfire. It is different from Brian Williams telling people how a soldier rescued him after his helicopter was downed in the Iraq war. Both of them were there and were apparently embellishing their story.

President Trump has been accused of exaggerating. While that is certainly true, we should also remember that most presidents are prone to do that, especially when they are getting facts from their aides. Obama told everyone a devastating tornado destroyed a town and killed 10,000 people. Actually the death toll was 12 people. Also, Trump isn’t the first to engage in hyperbole. Obama said at the Dallas memorial service for slain police officers that it is easier to buy a Glock than a book in many communities.

We should demand that presidents and their administrations tell the truth, but we shouldn’t call them liars just because they misspeak or exaggerate.

Events over the last two months illustrate how difficult it is to argue for unhindered abortion rights. Put another way, if you were in a debate competition and were given the assignment to defend abortion, you would know that you would have a more difficult time than the person who was given the assignment to defend the pro-life position.

Last month, for example there was the article in The Atlantic with the provocative title: “How Ultrasound Pushed the Idea That a Fetus is a Person.” The article generated lots of Twitter posts like: “How The X-ray Pushed the Idea That We All Have a Skeleton.” Russell Moore said: “On the phone checking in with my 5 sons. But since some of them were first revealed to us by ultrasound, I can’t vouch that they exist.” If that was not enough, the subtitle of the article originally stated that a fetal heartbeat was “imaginary.” The editors later removed that part of the article.

The Women’s March in January was a reminder that feminism today isn’t so much about male and female equality as it is about sexual autonomy. This is why we heard so much about a woman’s body. Of course, removing a developing baby is not the same as removing a gall bladder or kidney stones. Removing a cancerous tumor will never have a head, face, hands, and a beating heart.

Foundational to the pro-abortion position is a belief that no abortion at any point of the pregnancy should be prevented. So pro-choice advocates find themselves arguing against laws restricting third trimester abortions and partial birth abortion. Even Americans who support some abortion rights are usually repelled by the rhetoric of pro-choice advocates and politicians who cannot even allow laws against abortion at this late stage.

You know the pro-life movement is making progress when proponents of abortion rights have to deny science and common sense to defend their position.