Liberals rejoice after Clinton judge blocks Texas law requiring 10 Commandments in schools



Governor Greg Abbott (R) ratified legislation in June requiring all public-school classrooms in Texas to display the Ten Commandments.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick noted that "by placing the Ten Commandments in our classrooms, we are ensuring students receive the same foundational moral compass that guided our state and country’s forefathers."

The prospect that children in the Lone Star State would be publicly reminded from Sept. 1 onward to honor their parents and not to lie, murder, steal, commit adultery, or worship false gods proved intolerable to a number of liberals and anti-religion activists who promptly filed legal challenges.

'These rogue ISD officials and board members blatantly disregarded the will of Texas voters.'

Obliging one set of plaintiffs who alleged in a Sept. 22 lawsuit that the display of the historically significant moral code violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday that requires certain public school districts to remove displays of the Ten Commandments and further prohibits them from posting new displays.

Judge Orlando Garcia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, claimed that the display of the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public-school classroom as set forth in Senate Bill 10 violates the Establishment Clause.

The Clinton judge noted further that while the plaintiffs in the case were a motley crew of parents — some are atheists, agnostic, Christians, Jews, Baha'i, and Hindu — "they share one thing in common: Plaintiffs do not wish their children to be pressured to observe, venerate, or adopt the religious doctrine contained in the Ten Commandments."

RELATED: Ten Commandments out, Pride banners in

Blaze Media illustration

Garcia added that it was "impractical, if not impossible to prevent Plaintiffs from being subjected to unwelcome religious displays without enjoining Defendants from enforcing S.B. 10 across their districts."

The ruling applies to 14 school districts across the state.

The ACLU, which has defended classroom displays of LGBT symbols signifying liberals' rejection of sexual morality, celebrated the ruling.

"A federal court has recognized that the Constitution bars public schools from forcing religious scripture on students," said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion. "This decision is a victory for religious liberty and a reminder that government officials shouldn't pay favorites with faith."

Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, similarly celebrated the prohibition of the Ten Commandments in the classroom, stating, "Families throughout Texas and across the country get to decide how and when their children engage with religion — not politicians or public-school officials."

While Laser insinuated that Texans did not sanction the introduction of the Ten Commandments into public-school classrooms, voters across the state elected those lawmakers who passed S.B. 10 this year in decisive votes in the Texas legislature. Moreover, Texans — 4,437,099 to be exact — also gave Abbott a clear mandate in 2022 to ratify such legislation.

"We're extremely happy to have secured this victory for the plaintiff families we represent," said Sam Grover, senior counsel at the Freedom from Religion Foundation. "The law is quite clear that pushing religion on students in public school is unconstitutional."

Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has vowed to enforce the law, is appealing the decision, reported KLTV-TV.

On Tuesday, Paxton also announced that he was suing a pair of school districts for refusing to comply with S.B. 10.

"These rogue ISD officials and board members blatantly disregarded the will of Texas voters who expect the legal and moral heritage of our state to be displayed in accordance with the law," said Paxton. "This lawsuit makes clear that no district may ignore Texas law without consequence."

A panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that a similar law passed by Louisiana Republicans was "plainly unconstitutional." A hearing on the case by the full appeals court is scheduled for Jan. 20, 2026. The New York Times indicated that the court will also hear a challenge to Texas' S.B. 10 in that hearing.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How The ACLU Indirectly Helped Keep Hundreds Of Young Girls On ‘Kiddie Stroll’

'A failure of government, period'

Blue-state city battles ACLU to install archangel Michael statue honoring police



Thomas Koch, the mayor of Quincy, Massachusetts, commissioned two 10-foot-tall bronze statues to complement his city's new public safety headquarters, a 122,000 square-foot facility that will ultimately house both the police department and the fire department's administration offices.

One of the statues that the city asked renowned sculptor Sergey Eylanbekov to design depicts the winged archangel Michael stepping on the head of a demon. The other statue depicts Florian, a third-century firefighting Roman soldier, dumping water on a burning building.

'The statues of Michael and Florian honor service — not a creed.'

Despite the broader cultural significance of both figures and their longstanding association with first responders, groups loath to see any public signs of Christianity joined a number of local residents in suing to block the installation of the statues.

While the Norfolk Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction last week blocking the installation of the two statues, the city of Quincy, evidently unwilling to surrender to iconoclastic secularists, has teamed up with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty to file an appeal.

"We respect every citizen's beliefs, religious or not. But the statues of Michael and Florian honor service — not a creed," Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch said in a statement to Blaze News. "We’re hopeful that the court will reverse this order and allow our city to pay tribute to the men and women who keep our city safe."

The lawsuit

The lawsuit filed in May by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, names a number of Quincy residents as plaintiffs including

  • a Unitarian social justice warrior;
  • a self-identified Catholic who finds the "violent imagery" of good triumphing over evil to be "offensive";
  • a local synagogue member who suggested the images "may exacerbate the current rise in anti-Semitism";
  • an Episcopalian who believes that walking past such statues would amount to "submission to religious symbols";
  • several Catholics turned atheists apparently keen to avoid some of the imagery they grew up with; and
  • a lapsed Catholic who suggested the image of Michael stepping on the head of a demon was "reminiscent of how George Floyd was killed."

The lawsuit states that "affixing religious icons of one particular faith to a government facility — the City's public safety building, no less — sends an alarming message that those who do not subscribe to the City's preferred religious beliefs are second-class residents who should not feel safe, welcomed, or equally respected by their government."

RELATED: Exposing the great lie about 'MAGA Christianity' — and the truth elites hate

Quincy City Hall. Photo by Lane Turner/The Boston Globe via Getty Images.

The complaint hammers home the significance of Michael in Catholicism, where he is recognized as the patron saint of police, yet neglects to note that Michael also features prominently in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religious texts and traditions as well as in the Western literary canon and pop culture.

While the suit hints at possible civic or professional accomplishments on the part of Florian that could be recognized with a statue, it again suggested that as the patron saint of firefighters, a statue of the historical figure would similarly "send a predominantly religious message."

The plaintiffs alleged in their lawsuit that the city violated Article III of the Massachusetts Declaration Rights, and suggested that the installation of the statues "will not serve a predominantly secular purpose," but rather to "promote, promulgate, and advance one faith, subordinating other faiths as well as non-religious traditions."

The allegation of a violation of state law as opposed to a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution appears to have been strategic. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court has made expressly clear that "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause."

Mayor Koch rejected the plaintiffs' thesis, underscoring in a sworn affidavit that he regarded it as "appropriate to erect statues of two internationally recognized symbols of police and fire service, an act which would also serve to inspire the men and women who work in the building."

"There was nothing religious about this decision," continued Koch. "The fact that Michael and Florian each happen to be saints venerated in the Catholic Church is ancillary to their significance in the Police and Fire services, respectively."

The injunction

Quincy suggested in the suit that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they were "simply offended by the planned statues, and, unwilling to confine themselves to the ordinary means for airing ideological disagreements with the government — the political process — have sought to make a lawsuit out of it."

Norfolk Superior Court Justice William Sullivan, who was put on the court by former Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, was evidently not persuaded.

On Oct.14, Sullivan denied the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and granted a preliminary injunction against the erection of the statues, noting that the plaintiffs had demonstrated "that they are likely to succeed at proving that the permanent display of the oversized overtly religious-looking statutes have a primary effect of advancing religion."

RELATED: Clinton labor secretary panics after Trump asks the archangel Michael for help fighting evil

Photo by: Claudio Ciabochi/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Speaking to Koch's suggestion that the statues have secular significance and purpose, Sullivan wrote, "To the extent a statue of Saint Michael provides inspiration or conveys a message of truth, justice, or the triumph of good over evil, it does so in his context as a biblical figure — namely, the archangel of God. It is impossible to strip the statue of its religious meaning to contrive a secular purpose."

Rachel Davidson, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, celebrated the ruling, stating, "We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state."

"Massachusetts citizens are free to practice their personal religious views by placing statues of saints or other religious iconography on private property," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. "But such religious iconography emphatically does not belong on government buildings where all must feel welcome."

The appeal

Becket, a firm focused on protecting religious liberty, announced on Tuesday that it will join the city of Quincy in appealing Sullivan's decision.

"If allowed to stand, the decision would push cities across the Commonwealth to strip historic symbols from civic life whenever they carry religious associations," the firm said in a statement. "But the Supreme Court has upheld the use of symbols with religious roots in public life, including a World War I memorial featuring a cross, when they carry historical, cultural, or commemorative significance."

Using private funding in the 1920s, the American Legion constructed the 40-foot-tall Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, to honor soldiers who perished in World War I. The sight of the cross evidently enraged iconoclastic secularists, who sought to have it toppled. While the Fourth Circuit proved more than happy to oblige them, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in its 2019 American Legion v. American Humanist Association ruling that the cross did not violate the Establishment Clause.

The court also rejected the relevance of the test articulated by SCOTUS in its 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman ruling as a way of guiding the court in identifying Establishment Clause violations, noting that the Lemon test presented "particularly daunting problems" in such cases that "involve the use, for ceremonial, celebratory, or commemorative purpose, of words or symbols with religious associations."

While the Supreme Court has effectively rejected the Lemon test, Justice Sullivan leaned heavily on it in the Quincy case.

"Everyone is free to have their own opinions about public art, but in America, the fact that something may have religious associations is not a legitimate reason to censor it," said Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket.

"Our nation, like many others, has long drawn on historic symbols — including those with religious roots — to honor courage and sacrifice. The court should reject this lawsuit’s attempt to block these symbols of bravery and courage," added Davis.

Quincy Police Chief Mark Kennedy's office indicated the police department will have no comment as the issue remains in the hands of the court.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘No Kings’ Isn’t Protecting Democracy, But Suppressing It

'No Kings' isn’t a defense of democracy at all. Instead, it’s a defense of the entrenched power of the Democratic Party.

Woman Finds 250 Ballots In Amazon Box As Maine Dems Fight Voter ID Law

Now is the time to put an end to mystery ballot deliveries in Amazon boxes by enacting voter ID in Maine. Real democracy requires trustworthy elections, and trustworthy elections require voter ID.

EXCLUSIVE: DHS Debunks Media Lies About ‘Alligator Alcatraz’

'These types of smears are directly contributing to our officers facing a 1000% increase in assaults against them,' said DHS's McLaughlin.

The pipeline from 'gay marriage' to radical trans ideology



This is part of an ongoing series on the relationship between the campaign for redefining marriage and trans activism.

"The greater acceptance of trans people is a huge step forward for all of us," writes prominent gay marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan in a recent New York Times opinion piece. "But abolishing the sex binary for the entire society? That’s a whole other thing entirely. And madness, I believe."

So no, Mr. Sullivan: Despite your rosy-colored memories of an earlier, more civil era of gay activism, you have no right to be surprised by the excesses of the trans rights lobby.

Sullivan is hardly alone among fellow LGBT activists in thinking that the movement with which he once identified has gone too far.

But the trans radicals are not so different from the “mainstream” that now disavows them. In fact, these trans radicals use tactics pioneered and perfected during the fight to redefine marriage.

Imposed tolerance

As one who defended (and continue to defend) marriage between a man and a woman as good public policy, I can only say this: We tried to tell you.

Mr. Sullivan's 1996 book "Virtually Normal" presented gay marriage as a modest demand for "formal public equality" before the law, while rejecting the "political imposition of tolerance" and "the regulation of people's minds and actions."

Ten years after Obergefell finally made this "equality" the law of the land, Sullivan is scandalized to find that the newly ascendent trans wing has no intentions of stopping there:

Dissenters from gender ideology are routinely unfriended, shunned, and shamed. Almost all of the gay men, trans people, and lesbians who have confided in me that … they think that J.K. Rowling or Martina Navratilova have some good points, have said so sotto voce lest anyone overhear. That’s the extremely intolerant and illiberal atmosphere that now exists in the gay, lesbian, and transgender space. This little community used to champion all manner of expression or argument or speech, eccentrics and visionaries. Now it’s fearful, self-censored, and extremely uptight.

Sullivan may be surprised that people in the “LGBT space” suppress dissent within their own ranks, but I'm not.

A history of harassment

Remember Brendan Eich, who donated $1,000 to the pro-marriage Proposition 8 campaign in 2008? Gay activists did not have a rational conversation with him. They harassed him so much that he had to resign from the company that he founded.

“Marriage equality” activists published interactive maps showing names and addresses of Prop 8 donors so they could be systematically doxxed. Anti-Prop 8 protesters surrounded the Mormon temple in Los Angeles and beat people to the ground. In the years since Prop 8, many people have become fearful for their jobs if they say anything that could be construed as “hateful.”

Welcome to our world, Mr. Sullivan. Some of us have felt “fearful, self-censored, and extremely uptight” for some time.

Free speech foes

We share Sullivan's alarm at ACLU lawyer and trans activist Chase Strangio's reaction to a book criticizing childhood transition: “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

But he loses us when he goes on to portray the gay rights movement as First Amendment champions. "If censorship was in the air, gay men and lesbians were the first to oppose it.”

That’s not how I remember it, Mr. Sullivan. Didn’t you know that gay activists pressured Amazon to remove books by authors like ex-gays Joe Dallas and therapist Joseph Nicolosi?

Maybe you forgot the time when the Log Cabin Republicans insisted that the pro-family group Mass Resistance be banned from a Conservative Political Action Conference meeting in 2018 because of its book “The Health Hazards of Homosexuality"?

I haven't forgotten. I wrote an article about the book and the controversy it sparked when it first came out in 2017. Amid the ubiquitous outcry, not one critic bothered to offer evidence countering even a single claim in the 600-page, meticulously footnoted book.

In 2020, gay activists succeeded in getting the book banned from Amazon, where it remains unavailable.

And so it is that much harder for people with same-sex attraction to access a resource providing accurate, albeit unpleasant, information about the medical and psychological risks associated with acting on those attractions. Is removing this book from the biggest book distributor in the world really a way of “treasuring” free speech?

RELATED: Gay marriage has a hidden cost — and children are paying the price

Valerii Evlakhov/iStock/Getty Images

Live and let live?

Mr. Sullivan writes, “The gay rights movement, especially in the marriage years, had long asked for simple liberal equality and mutual respect — live and let live . ...We will leave you alone."

Baker Jack Phillips would dispute the “live and let live” claim. He did not challenge the legal right of same-sex couples to wed; he just didn't want to bake a cake celebrating that union. So in 2012, activists dragged him to court.

When the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, another activist dragged him back into court for not baking a cake to celebrate his "transition." Phillips' nightmare didn’t come to an end until 2024.

A new version of 'homophobic'

Despite his misgivings about the radical trans agenda, in his article, Mr. Sullivan uses the word "transphobic" without a hint of irony. It is a word meant to cast any disagreement with trans ideology as "hate."

It is the direct successor to the word "homophobic," which similarly attempted to discredit our objections to gay marriage. We learned that “hate” was the only possible reason anyone would disagree with such obviously correct views.

I should know. I ended up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list for my unacceptable, intolerant views that prioritize children’s rights to their parents over adults’ rights to feel good about themselves.

And who invented the term “heteronormative,” the (supposedly erroneous) belief that heterosexuality is normal? (News flash: Heterosexuality is normal, in all mammal species.) Perhaps the same person who later came up with “gender affirming care” as a euphemism for drugs and surgeries performed on perfectly healthy, though confused, young people.

So no, Mr. Sullivan: Despite your rosy-colored memories of an earlier, more civil era of gay activism, you have no right to be surprised by the excesses of the trans rights lobby.

I implore you to rethink your presumptions. Your tactics laid the groundwork for the trans movement. If you are sincerely appalled by their tactics (and I hope you are), I would appreciate an apology. I bet Brendan Eich, Jack Phillips, and the Mormon Church would, too.

But I’m just getting started. My next column will describe how “gay-friendly” policies set the stage for “trans-friendly” policies.

Election integrity win! Blue city in Michigan may soon have to explain Democrat-favored polling problem



Election officials in one of the bluest cities in Michigan may soon have to give answers under oath about an election-related imbalance that always seems to favor Democrats.

In 2022, the Michigan GOP and the Republican National Committee sued various officials in Flint, Michigan, after the city hired just a fraction of the number of Republican polling inspectors required by state law.

'It’s about making sure that courts are open to decide important questions about people’s rights.'

The state statute demands that "board of election commissioners shall appoint at least 1 election inspector from each major political party and shall appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of election inspectors in each election precinct from each major political party."

However, of the 562 inspectors appointed by the Flint election commissioners, just 57 were Republicans, court documents said.

RELATED: Trump order leads to investigation of 33 potential incidents of noncitizen voting, AG Paxton says

Photo by GEOFF ROBINS/AFP via Getty Images

Despite the gross disparity, lower courts in Michigan dismissed the lawsuit, claiming that the state and national Republican parties lacked standing. These Republican organizations "cannot show that they are interested parties who are entitled to a declaratory judgment," the majority opinion from the Michigan Court of Appeals determined in 2024. The 2-1 decision added that the groups "do not have a legally protected interest in the enforcement of" the applicable statutes.

A supermajority of the decidedly liberal Michigan Supreme Court disagreed.

On Monday, the state's highest court ruled 5-1 that the Michigan Republican Party and the RNC do in fact have "a unique interest in ensuring the fair and equal treatment of party-affiliated candidates during voting and the counting of ballots." The ruling added that such "fair and equal treatment" "is fulfilled through party-affiliated election inspectors."

The ruling gives new life to the GOP lawsuit, allowing it to proceed at the lower courts. Should it be retried, "Flint officials will be forced to explain themselves under oath," Rod D. Martin, tech entrepreneur and CEO of Martin Capital, noted.

"Democrats stacked the deck in Flint," Martin continued on social media. "Now they’ll have to answer for it."

Michael Whatley, chairman of the RNC, likewise cheered the ruling as "another major win for election integrity!"

"Every voter deserves transparency and fairness — and that starts with equal representation among poll workers," he continued in a statement posted to social media.

Republican state Rep. Bryan Posthumus of Rockford is likewise pleased.

"The Supreme Court made the right call in overturning the lower court's ruling," Posthumus said in a statement to Blaze News. "The fight to ensure free, fair, and transparent elections is a continuous one, and this is a big battle to win."

Even the ACLU of Michigan celebrated the decision. ACLU attorney Phil Mayor claimed that the GOP lawsuit "really deserved to be heard."

"The underlying case may be about politics, but the standing question that the Michigan Supreme Court decided today is not about politics. It’s about making sure that courts are open to decide important questions about people’s rights," Mayor said, according to Michigan Public.

RELATED: 16 noncitizens apparently voted in Michigan in 2024 — and liberals are cheering about it

Michael Whatley and President-elect Donald Trump meet in Arizona in December 2024.Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

Flint is not the only heavily Democratic city in Michigan to be sued for failing to hire enough Republican election inspectors. In August, the RNC sued Detroit on similar grounds.

At that point, only 335 of the more than 500 precincts in Detroit had provided legally required information about polling workers. Of those 335, at least 202 "did not have any Republican election inspectors," the lawsuit said, even though the Detroit clerk had received in May a list of nearly 700 Republicans willing to serve.

Though the city had hired at least 250 Republicans, those supposed Republicans were not nominated by the party.

Detroit settled that lawsuit just before the 2024 general election, agreeing to adjust "processes and protocols" to accord with state law.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judge Blocks Another Trump Order, Proving Alito Was Right About Loopholes In SCOTUS Injunction Ruling

Days after Justice Samuel Alito warned that a recent Supreme Court ruling had two glaring holes that could be exploited, an Obama-appointed judge appears to have done just that. U.S. District Judge Randolph Daniel Moss sided with the left-wing ACLU and several other activists organizations when he ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority […]

God’s justice doesn’t sleep — and the Supreme Court just proved it



In a landmark 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on so-called gender-affirming care for minors. Wednesday’s ruling in United States v. Skrmetti affirms the state’s authority to protect children from irreversible medical interventions, declaring that such laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 prohibits medical providers from prescribing puberty blockers, administering cross-sex hormones, or performing surgeries on minors for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria. With this ruling, the court established a powerful precedent, strengthening similar laws in more than two dozen states and shielding them from federal interference.

The Supreme Court now affirms what parents, pastors, and pediatricians have known for years: Children deserve protection — not ideological exploitation.

This is more than a legal or political victory. It’s a profoundly spiritual one.

Judgment in Pride Month

The timing of the court’s decision — handed down in the middle of Pride Month — is impossible to ignore. For years, the month of June has been co-opted to celebrate sexual perversion and radical gender ideology. Parades, corporate campaigns, and cultural rituals now elevate confusion and self-expression above truth and morality.

But God’s timing often intersects with the idols of a wayward culture.

Just as He once shattered the authority of Egypt’s gods through plagues and humiliated the pagan deities of Canaan through Israel’s victories, He now confronts the false gods of modern America. The gods of Pride Month have names: self-worship, mutilation, and moral relativism.

This ruling, like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization before it, arrived in a season when the world celebrates rebellion. But God never abdicates. He acts — often decisively.

The right to protect children

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in concurrence, emphasized the state’s legitimate interest in protecting children from unproven and dangerous procedures. “States could reasonably conclude,” he wrote, “that the level of young children's cognitive and emotional development inhibits their ability to consent to sex-transition treatments.”

Thomas reminded the nation that legislatures — not courts — are charged with protecting the vulnerable. The Constitution allows states to say no to radical experiments on children. That’s common sense. That’s moral responsibility.

RELATED: Matt Walsh’s crusade pays off: SCOTUS protects Tennessee kids from gender mutilation

Photo by Jason Davis/Getty Images for The Daily Wire

The court’s ruling also reinforces policies advanced by the Trump administration, which has taken steps to push back against transgender mandates. The court now affirms what parents, pastors, and pediatricians have known for years: Children deserve protection — not ideological exploitation.

‘The least of these’

At its core, this decision defends “the least of these" (Matthew 25:40). In Matthew 10:42, Jesus declares, “And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones ... truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”

Advocates of transgender medicine call their approach “compassionate.” But compassion doesn’t mutilate. It doesn’t sterilize. It doesn’t tell children they were born in the wrong body.

Real compassion tells children the truth: They are fearfully and wonderfully made. God knit them together in their mother’s wombs (Psalm 139:13-14). He doesn’t make mistakes.

The lie that “God got your body wrong” devastates young minds. Puberty blockers, double mastectomies, and genital surgeries don’t bring peace. They usher in trauma, regret, and permanent damage.

By upholding these bans, the Supreme Court gives children the gift of time — time to grow, to mature, and to embrace their God-given identities without the pressure of irreversible decisions.

Tear down the idols

Now comes the charge to the church. This moment demands courage.

American culture has erected new high places. Gender ideology sits at the top. It demands worship, conformity, and silence. But like King Josiah, who tore down the altars of Baal, or Gideon, who smashed the Asherah poles, Christians must act.

Now is not the time for retreat. Now is not the time for timidity. The culture may roar, but the God of heaven still rules.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reminds believers that God still moves. He has not abandoned America. He still defends the innocent. He still topples idols.

Faithfulness bears fruit

Galatians 6:9 tells us not to grow weary in doing good. This ruling is the harvest of those who prayed, labored, and stood firm when the world called them hateful. Their perseverance bore fruit — in law, in policy, and in culture.

Let this be a turning point.

Let this be the moment when the nation remembers who created it. Let this be the moment when the church reclaims its voice. Let this be the moment when truth reasserts itself — and children are protected from those who would harm them in the name of progress.

America is not forsaken. God is still at work, and His purposes will prevail.