The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of religious schools. The decision in Carson v. Makin written by the Chief Justice made it clear that religious parents should have the same freedom as non-religious parents. The state of Maine provided funding for parents but restricted parents from using it for religious schools.

Two earlier precedents provided the foundation for the decision. In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the court ruled that the state could not refuse a grant (used for playground resurfacing) to the church’s preschool and day care center. In Espinoza v. Montana, the court ruled that it was constitutional to allow private-education tax credits to be used for religious schools.

While we can celebrate each of these victories, the latest criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision illustrates we have more educational work to do. Critics argue that this decision is one more attack on the “separation of church and state.” If you have been listening to my commentary for any time, you know that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the First Amendment.

You might be tempted to assume that people using the phrase “separation of church and state” are just people ignorant of American history and jurisprudence. But listen to the dissent written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “This court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” She says she even feared that theses decision would lead “to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.”

As you can see, we have some educational work to do when even a Supreme Court justice repeats a phrase not even found in the Constitution.

One of the questions that seems to stump otherwise intelligent people is the question, “What is a woman?” Another apparently difficult question surfaced in California. That is the question, “What is a bumblebee?” A California court ruled that bumblebees are fish and can be protected by the California Endangered Species Act.

This is merely a linguistic trick to expand the government’s reach, but there is growing evidence that several of the many woke ideas being applied to humans are now being applied to animals.

You can find headlines about “Checking privilege in the animal kingdom” and suggest that “Squirrel privilege is real.” Even the New York Times reported a few years ago that “Even Hermit crabs have wealth inequality.”

Perhaps the best example came from the court case in New York. The Nonhuman Rights Project has been trying to establish “legal personhood” for “great apes, elephants, dolphins, and whales.” They wanted to establish a precedent by declaring Happy the elephant at the Bronx Zoo a legal person. They were rebuffed in a 5-2 decision by the New York State Court of Appeals.

While we can agree with the decision, my colleagues and I wonder about the two justices that apparently wanted to declare that Happy the elephant is a person. An elephant is an elephant and not a person even if Happy might be more intelligent than some people.

An observation often attributed to G.K. Chesterton is, “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing anything.” When our secular society rejects God and the belief that humans are created in the image of God, the logical next step has become woke animal rights.

Abigail Shrier has written an essay “In Defense of Political Escalation.” You may remember that she is the author of the book, Irreversible Damage, that documents the sudden rise in young people, especially teenage girls wanting to transition. Even if you don’t accept her conclusion, her essay is worth reading because she documents so many cases of censorship that are rarely even covered by the media.

Ryan Anderson and his co-author lost their ability to offer pre-order of their pro-life audio book when the book’s distributor dropped them for ideological reasons. In previous commentaries, I talked about how his book, When Harry Became Sally on the transgender movement was erased by Amazon. Even third-party sales of his book were banned from Amazon and all the sites they control. This is significant because half of all US book sales flow through its channels

She discussed the decision by Target two years ago to delete her book. At the time, there was a public outcry, and they reversed the ban. But they once again deleted the book when no one was watching. She concludes that we have become so used to censorship that we are like the characters in Fahrenheit 451 that simply accept a censorship as part of daily life.

Why aren’t people on the left speaking out? She says that most liberals will be content to allow institutions to punish conservatives if they remain unscathed. And they can see what happens when brave souls like J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk, or Joe Rogan speak out.

She concludes, “Those waiting on the mythical pendulum to swing back, should stop holding their breath.” She makes a good case for political escalation that we need to thoughtfully consider.

A bi-partisan group of US senators have been discussing and debating gun control legislation. Democratic members of Congress and former members are heralding it as a legislative milestone.

Senator Schumer is “pleased that, for the first time in nearly 30 years Congress is on the path to take meaningful action to address gun violence.” Senator Murphy hailed the breakthrough agreement as “the first in 30 years.” Gabby Giffords says the measure will “be the first time in 30 years that Congress takes a major action on gun safety.”

Is this really the first time any action has been taken on guns in 30 years? No, that isn’t true. First, it’s obvious to me that every Democrat is faithfully reading off the talking point that this is “the first time in 30 years.”

Second, I wondered if these Democrats forgot all the gun legislation passed five years ago. For example, Senator Murphy explained to the press that the 2017 bipartisan gun legislation was “an important milestone that shows real compromise can be made on the issue of guns.”

He hasn’t forgotten. Charles Cooke refers to this in a recent commentary as “Gun Controller’s Tactical Amnesia.” This is a game certain members of Congress play with us. He even reminds us ABC News proclaimed back in 2008 that the congressional response to the massacre at Virginia Tech was the “first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years.”

If you have been paying attention, here is the pattern. First, use a horrific shooting to advocate for stricter gun-control laws. Second, proclaim the bill as unprecedented and significant breakthrough. Third, pass the bill into law. Then wait a few years to restart the cycle.

Even if the proposed legislation is passed, expect that five years from now we will be given another bill that will be a breakthrough “for the first time in 35 years.”

Ben Shapiro asks an important question: Is Ignoring the Other Side a Winning Strategy for the Left? He asked that question because his company released the documentary by Matt Walsh, “What is a Woman?” The film investigates radical gender theory and its influence in society.

He noted that (at least at the time of the article) no one in the entertainment media reviewed the film. Rotten Tomatoes had lots of viewer reviews and comments, but not a single traditional review of the film was listed in the site.

The conscious decision to ignore the other side in a controversial issue can be found in many other areas. Pick a controversy: voter fraud, climate change, gun violence, vaccine effectiveness, or several other issues. News programs and social media sites may not even acknowledge there is another side to the controversy. Suggest a debate on the subject and you will be told “we won’t debate the issue for the same reason we don’t debate flat earthers.”

But what if credentialed individuals do have a difference of opinion? Then, we are told it is time to censor those people spreading disinformation. That may work for a time until alternative media provides an outlet for those ideas. Ben Shapiro quotes a former Barack Obama advisor who called for even more censorship because Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire has more followers and engagement than the New York Times or CNN.

Ben Shapiro concludes that the strategy of ignoring the other side doesn’t work. The progressive left has siloed themselves in a world divorced from reality by telling themselves that the other side doesn’t exist. But the other side does exist and has alternative sources of news and information. Moreover, the other side votes and will likely make their presence known in the November elections.

Charles Cooke argues that “Progressives Have a Twitter Problem.” Of course, you could also say that liberals and conservatives focus too much on Twitter. But what he is talking about is the Twitter echo chamber reinforces liberal ideas that bear little relation to reality.

Progressive ideas and policy proposals are promoted and reinforced within the Twitter sphere. Tweets are retweeted and repeatedly liked by a mob of sycophants. Soon an idea that might not even be given serious consideration in Congress or the whole of society becomes the dominant discussion.

Charles Cooke says that the current obsession with student loan forgiveness “is pure Twitter, as are the relentless focus on transgenderism and race-essentialism.” Phrases like “birthing people” and “Jim Crow 2.0” and “Defund the police” were also “a Twitter thing.”

The Twitter echo chamber not only has an influence on policy, but it has an influence on people. “Sometimes, the Internet helps people advance their careers. Sometimes, it gives them the rope with which they will hang themselves.”

Yes, there are crazies on both the left and the right. But the conservative crazies are more likely to be kicked out social media. Also, progressive crazies are more likely to demand cancelation not only of conservatives but even of liberals. You can never be woke enough for many progressives, which is why they often “eat their own.”

Twitter also highlights personality flaws. Charles Cooke talks about one prominent law professor who seemed normal and was highly regarded. Then we started to see what the professor posted online. He didn’t look so smart, rational, or normal.

Progressives have a Twitter problem because they believe too much of what they read there that has no relation to reality. And it exposes the irrational views of many of them.

Several commentators point to an obvious contradiction. On the one hand, progressive activists mourn the loss of “our most vulnerable” who are killed in a store or school. Yet with the next breath promote state laws that will increase the killing of the unborn, who are truly the most vulnerable in society.

Much of this contradiction is tied up with a misunderstanding of rights. Rights are rooted in natural law and cannot merely be your subjective feelings. The so-called “right to abortion” isn’t a right found in the Constitution nor can it be found in centuries of writings about natural law. The “right” to kill the unborn is not a right.

Those who promote abortion would certainly accept the idea that the victims of the recent mass shootings had a right to life. But they ignore the right to life for the unborn by changing the subject to a woman’s right to choose.

This illustrates another contradiction. The state of New York, for example, passed two different sets of laws concerning abortion. Lawmakers quickly passed a package of bills designed to increase the number of abortions in the state. The governor seems to be working to make New York an abortion sanctuary that would encourage women in other states to travel there to get an abortion.

At the same time, the New York legislature passed a bill that requires the state health commissioner to investigate pro-life pregnancy centers in the state. This thinly veiled law may be used to intimidate clinics. These are clinics that give abortion-minded woman a choice other than abortion. New York lawmakers may say they believe in choice, but they appear to be doing all they can to eliminate the possibility of giving a pregnant woman a true choice.

This is the upside-down moral reasoning of our current culture of death. We need to be promoting a culture of life along with rational moral arguments.

Most Christians do not have a biblical worldview. That has been well documented in numerous studies. This is puzzling since a significant percentage of Christians without a biblical worldview regularly attend church services. A recent study by George Barna may have an answer.

Put simply, church members don’t have a biblical worldview because the pastor does not have a biblical worldview. Less than a third (31%) of pastors in America have a biblical worldview. That is a shocking percentage.

One pastor told George Barna that may not be too shocking considering that many pastors of liberal churches would not have an orthodox view. But he went on to say that what would be shocking is it the percentages were low among evangelical pastors. The most recent poll shows that a bare majority of evangelical pastors (51%) and only about a third (36%) of charismatic or Pentecostal pastors have a biblical worldview. He also found that less than one in ten (9%) of pastors in traditionally black churches have a biblical worldview.

Another interesting correlation was the relationship between worldview and church size. Generally, the smaller congregations are more likely than those of larger congregations to have a biblical worldview. More than four in ten (41%-45%) of the pastors of churches with smaller congregations have a biblical worldview. By contrast, only 15 percent of pastors in churches with more than 250 adults have a biblical worldview.

George Barna explained that pastors who fill the position of Teaching Pastor or Executive Pastor usually had the lowest scores. These positions are found most often in larger churches.

His survey breaks down pastors according to denomination, according to church size, and according to congregational ethnicity. None of the percentages are encouraging and a reminder that we need be discerning when choosing a church.

The country is currently focused on gun violence because of the recent mass shootings in stores and schools. But Rich Lowry reminds us that, “the same leftists who rightfully lament mass shootings avert their eyes from the much more common scourge of deadly gang violence.”

Some recent headlines seem intended to deceive. One headline howled that “at least 54 injured, 11 killed in 7 separate mass shootings this weekend.” Such headlines leave the reader with the impression that the US is experiencing a Buffalo or Uvalde nearly every day.

One of the shootings in the headline I just mentioned occurred when two cars pulled up to a graduation party in South Carolina. The perpetrators opened fire in what could best be described as a gang related drive-by-shooting.

Any shooting is horrific, yet Rich Lowry argues that “there is a difference between the phenomena of a disturbed young male who has been inspired by prior mass shooters to go to a school or other public place and slaughter as many people as possible, and the gang member who targets rivals.” The former is relative rare. The latter has been much more common, but don’t gain as much national attention.

Documenting the extent of gang violence is difficult. The National Gang Center at the Department of Justice estimates that roughly 2,000 gang homicides occurred from 2007 to 2012. But in Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang related.

Mass shootings and gang shootings are very different. Focusing on effective criminal justice reforms will reduce the gang death toll in the future. That would include tough-on-crime polices along with anti-gang measures.