Christianity-hating activist moves to tear down historic Los Angeles cross — but proud LA group is having none of it



A group of Los Angeles residents are taking a stand against the latest effort in California to erase Christianity from public spaces.

A nearly century-old, hand-carved 10-foot cross stands within a stone's throw of the birthplace of Los Angeles. While every year, over 2 million visitors pass the historic cross in El Pueblo, a self-identified "freedom of expression activist" unilaterally decided that the sight of the Christian symbol was too much to bear.

'Los Angeles shouldn’t have to erase its own history every time someone takes offense.'

Jack Gerritsen — a resident of Bell, California, who was convicted decades ago for interfering with police radio transmissions — sued the city last year, claiming that the cross and the nativity traditionally displayed in the Old Plaza during the Christmas season violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Gerritsen said that the nativity "offends [him] and makes [him] feel excluded as a non-believer," and the cross constitutes a "Christian endorsement on public land."

Offended by the religious nature of the displays, Gerritsen — who appears to be behind a Facebook account that has demeaned Christianity, idolized the anti-Christian Marxist-Leninist Che Guvera, and made excuses for terrorists — joined Henry Frederick Ramey Jr., with whom he previously sued multiple regional authorities, in asking a federal court to order the removal of the cross and prohibit the city from ever again putting up the nativity. The two are also seeking $5 million in damages.

The district court rejected their request.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the lower court noted that because the cross was erected nearly a century ago, it met the "presumption of constitutionality" as "established" and "longstanding." The court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the cross was "maintained with discriminatory intent" or that it conveys deliberate disrespect on the basis of religion.

While the court did not find that the nativity display was similarly "established," it recognized it as "part of a broader national tradition," "a central piece of a longstanding local cultural practice," and "consistent with this country's history." Therefore, the court determined, it does not violate the Establishment Clause.

RELATED: The anti-Christian myth of First Amendment 'neutrality'

Courtesy of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

The plaintiffs kept the legal battle alive by appealing the ruling. Gerritsen did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday to permit a group of local merchants to join the case and defend the historic displays.

"For generations, the merchants of Olvera Street have kept the neighborhood‘s rich Mexican-American heritage alive," Andrea Butler, counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the merchants, said in a statement. "Now one observer wants to take down the parts of that heritage that include religion."

"Thankfully, the First Amendment doesn’t include a third-party veto over history and culture merely because it acknowledges religion," added Butler.

The Olvera Street Merchants Association Foundation is a nonprofit organization formed to protect and promote the traditional, historical, and cultural events in the area, whose members have a "significant protectable interest in the historical and cultural preservation of Olvera Street," Becket said in its motion. For starters, the foundation's board of directors "comprises merchants whose families have been part of the Olvera Street merchant community since its inception in 1930."

Becket noted in its proposed intervenor-defendant's brief that "El Pueblo has been preserved as a State Historic Park and a National Historic District specifically to protect its historic and cultural heritage, dating back to the founding of Los Angeles itself. ... The displays at issue here are a key part of that heritage."

"Los Angeles shouldn’t have to erase its own history every time someone takes offense," stated Butler. "The cross and nativity are woven into the fabric of El Pueblo. Nothing in the Constitution requires those traditions to be torn away. The city should be free to keep its full history, including the parts that happen to be religious."

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

Mormon parents fight woke school district over alleged LGBTQ propaganda in California despite SCOTUS ruling



A Mormon couple seeking to protect their children from radical gender ideology were allegedly notified by Sunnyvale School District in Santa Clara County that LGBTQ instruction was "not optional and is not subject to parent opt-out provisions."

The district allegedly gave this notice after — and apparently with full knowledge of — the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the high court held that a Maryland school district's policy of withholding from parents notice of LGBT propaganda sessions and forbidding opt-outs constituted "an unconstitutional burden" on the parents' religious exercise.

'The school boards will continue to defy the SCOTUS ruling, gaslight, lie, and deflect.'

The district also allegedly denied the Mormon parents an opt-out after the California Department of Education acknowledged in its August 2025 guidance that the "fundamental holding" in Mahmoud was that schools must provide parents with the opportunity to opt their children out of policies or exposure to material that schools have "reason to know will 'substantially interfere'" with parents' religious rights.

Unwilling to surrender their children's hearts and minds to the apparent LGBT propagandists at SSD's Cumberland Elementary School, Justin and Rose Taylor — represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm focused on protecting religious freedoms that won the Mahmoud case before SCOTUS — filed a lawsuit on Monday against the district in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Taylors — the proud parents of four children, including a rising third-grade son and a rising first-grade daughter at Cumberland Elementary School — said in a statement, "Our children are the most cherished part of our lives."

"We know and love them best and should be the ones deciding when and how they learn about sensitive topics regarding sexuality and gender," continued the parents. "Fortunately, the Supreme Court has recognized that right for religious parents nationwide."

RELATED: Critics blast Chicago mayor for pushing 'transfemicide' 'gibberish' amid deadly shootings

PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images

"California school districts have been putting LGBTQ propaganda in front of students for close to 20 years," Alvin Lui, president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, told Blaze News. "They're just now much more emboldened. I'm ecstatic to see these parents make an example out of the Sunnyvale School District."

The lawsuit claims that "Sunnyvale's denial violates parents' constitutional rights to direct the education and upbringing of their children in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs," and asks the court to:

  • enter a declaration that the SSD's alleged refusal to afford the parents a right to "opt out from LGBTQ+ instruction, including the forced reading of the District’s recommended LGBTQ+ storybooks, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment";
  • enter a declaration that forcing the Taylors to "educate their children, read,and/or speak consistently with the perspectives contained in the LGBTQ+ instruction, and compelling Plaintiffs’ children to accept one viewpoint to the exclusion of all others violates their rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment";
  • enter a declaration that "forcing students, over their parents’ objection, to read or listen to the LGBTQ+ instruction violates the Taylors’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment";
  • grant preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the school from forcing the kids to participate in the LGBT propaganda sessions; and
  • award the parents damages for loss of their rights under federal law.

The SSD did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

The lawsuit details some of the LGBT agitprop allegedly pushed by the SSD, noting that its curriculum "integrates LGBTQ+ history, representation, and examples throughout instructional units to show 'diverse backgrounds, identities, experiences, and abilities, including those who are lesbian, gay, genderqueer, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA).'"

This propaganda is apparently foisted upon students at all grade levels.

The "LGBTQ+ Teaching Guide" issued by the Santa Clara County Office of Education, which oversees Sunnyvale, discusses how to incorporate LGBT propaganda into virtually every subject.

Math teachers, for instance, are told in the guide to "use problems that relate to marriage equality, gender-neutral bathrooms, and LGBTQ+ rights to demonstrate mathematical concepts such as statistics, probability, and geometry."

Science and health teachers are told to champion "gender-inclusive biology" — in which, for example, "ovaries" are substituted in for "women" so as not to suggest a link between womanhood and female reproductive organs.

This guidance — which has been embraced by Sunnyvale — even quoted LGBTQ activist Barbara Gittings: "The struggle is really won in the hearts and minds of the community, where it really counts."

The Taylors' lawsuit highlights a number of the agitprop materials allegedly used by the SSD in its LGBT instruction including a book that changes the lyrics of "The Wheels on the Bus" to lyrics celebrating drag titled "The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish" and "Pride Puppy," a book that tasks 3- and 4-year-old students with searching for items they might find at a non-straight parade — including transvestite activists, underwear, leather, "intersex flag," and feathers.

The LGBT instruction under way in Sunnyvale is of the same type addressed in Mahmoud, claimed the lawsuit.

The Taylors' lawsuit alleges that while SSD initially appeared willing to permit opt-outs, "Sunnyvale abruptly flipped its position" and "affirmatively disclaimed its constitutional responsibility to afford families what the First Amendment requires."

Sunnyvale stated in a letter to the Taylors that it was "not granting opt-outs from LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum or storybooks that are part of our adopted educational program."

The district added in its letter that "the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor ... addressed a specific set of facts in another state" and neither created a "general or automatic right for parents to opt their children out of required curriculum" nor overrode "California's statutory requirements governing instructional content."

Becket said that "Sunnyvale’s defiance was no accident. After Mahmoud came down, Sunnyvale told its teachers to 'resist pressures' that might get in the way of its curriculum."

However, Michael O'brien, counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the Taylors, underscored that "the Constitution doesn't come with a California carve-out."

One of the defendants, SSD director of student support services Paul Slayton, said in a statement obtained by the Press Democrat, "The district was surprised to learn that the Taylor family had filed a lawsuit, particularly given the positive and productive discussions that took place following the family’s initial concerns."

"We will continue to approach this matter with professionalism and care," added Slayton.

"When the Mahmoud decision came out from the SCOTUS, like everyone in our space, we were very happy," Alvin Lui told Blaze News. "However, the first thing we did was warn parents that schools, and especially school counselors, will not honor that decision."

"The school boards will continue to defy the SCOTUS ruling, gaslight, lie, and deflect. They'll try to wear parents down so they can continue to put obscene LGBTQ materials in front of children as young as possible."

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

ACLU fights archangel Michael statue honoring cops — but court might not normalize 'heckler's veto'



A Massachusetts city in the Greater Boston area commissioned a pair of 10-foot-tall bronze statues heavy with cultural and historical significance to honor police and firefighters outside its new public safety headquarters.

Since the statues also carry religious significance — one depicts the winged archangel Michael stepping on the head of a demon, and the other depicts Florian, a third-century firefighting Roman Christian — the American Civil Liberties Union and a handful of secularizing activist groups joined local thin-skinned critics in suing to block the installation last May.

According to the ACLU, having the two statues as the sole adornments on the building's facade "would undermine religious pluralism in Quincy and violate the Massachusetts Constitution’s long-standing requirement that the government remain neutral in matters of religion."

'Let Quincy pay tribute to its firefighters and police.'

The ensuing legal battle has reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which heard oral arguments on Wednesday in the case Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy.

The defendants' thesis, as outlined in their opening brief to the court, is that symbolism on government property should not become "illegal simply because some citizens perceive it to have religious meaning."

Some of the court's justices, Democrat-appointee Gabrielle Wolohojian in particular, did not appear to be entirely buying what the attorney for the city from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty was selling at the outset despite considering his arguments in a city already replete with public art evoking persons, symbols, and themes of religious significance, including multiple statues of Moses.

RELATED: Young men flocking to Christianity in record numbers

Education Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Image

The court proved particularly fixated on whether Florian and Michael's special recognition as saints by the Catholic Church was actually an issue in this case and raised as possibly relevant in a lower court's insinuation that the statues' primary champion, Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, was untrustworthy and had worked clandestinely to get the statues funded and installed.

The court was not, however, overly receptive to the ACLU's arguments in favor of denying Quincy first responders their statues, which have been defended in recent months by a plethora of organizations, including the nation’s largest firefighter and police unions, various faith groups, and esteemed constitutional scholars.

One justice questioned whether:

  • such legal concern-mongering constitutes a "heckler's veto" that is here at risk of being normalized;
  • the plaintiffs were effectively asking the state's high court to "provide less protection than the Supreme Court on free exercise," or "allow more hostility to religion than the Supreme Court would tolerate"; and
  • the statues endorsed a particular religion — an especially dubious claim given Florian's secular, historical significance and the archangel Michael's significance in multiple distinct faiths as well as in popular culture and literature.

Tom Bowes, president of Quincy's Firefighters Local 792, said in a statement, "For generations, Florian’s legacy has inspired the brave men and women who run toward danger when others need help. We hope the court allows Quincy to honor that tradition and the first responders who live it every day."

Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket and an attorney for the city, said, "In this country, public art doesn't become off-limits just because it may make some people think about religion. We’re confident the justices will apply that commonsense rule here and let Quincy pay tribute to its firefighters and police."

Eric Rassbach, another attorney at Becket, said in the wake of the hearing on Wednesday that the ACLU's argument largely "relied on the supposedly dead legal standard known as the Lemon test, which SCOTUS abrogated."

"For decades, the unusuable Lemon test produced confusion and split decisions in cases involving religious symbols," continued Rassbach. "That changed in 2019, when SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in [American Legion v. American Humanist Association] that the First Amendment does not require removing a WWI memorial cross and made clear that Lemon no longer applies."

While the Supreme Court 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, Norfolk Superior Court Judge William Sullivan previously leaned heavily on it in the Quincy case.

"It would be a bizarre move for Massachusetts to revive a test that failed so badly at the federal level, especially since Lemon has no grounding in the Commonwealth’s Constitution," wrote Rassbach. "That document takes a different approach: It recognizes the vital role of religion in public life while guaranteeing equal protection for all religious denominations. That’s a far cry from forcing cities to scrub anything that smacks of the religious from all public property."

The court is expected to deliver its decision sometime this fall.

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

SCOTUS agrees to hear arguments in Colorado religious freedom case



The Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on whether religious institutions must set aside their core beliefs in order to participate in a state-funded program.

The St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy case, broadly speaking, is a challenge to the Archdiocese of Denver's requirement that families and staff support Catholic beliefs. The state takes issue with this requirement when considering whether to allow Catholic schools in the archdiocese to participate in the Universal Preschool Program.

'Colorado promised free preschool for all, then slammed the door on families who chose a religious education for their children. After three losses in religious freedom cases at the Supreme Court, Colorado should know better.'

The archdiocese requires staff and families to sign statements to "affirm that they will support the teachings of the Catholic Church" and that "all Catholic school families must understand and display a positive and supportive attitude toward the Catholic Church," according to Fox News.

Colorado officials, however, argue that these requirements are not inclusive of all children.

RELATED: Why the Supreme Court nuked Colorado’s 'Must Stay Gay' law (and what to expect next)

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post/Getty Images

"All participating providers — whether religious or secular — must ensure that children have equal opportunity to enroll in and receive preschool services regardless of those children’s (or their families’) religious affiliation, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability," the state said.

The state's universal preschool program covers all types of schools and offers 15 hours of free preschool each week in the year before the child enters kindergarten.

Nicholas Reaves, senior counsel at Becket and attorney for the families and preschools, told Blaze News, “Colorado promised free preschool for all, then slammed the door on families who chose a religious education for their children. After three losses in religious freedom cases at the Supreme Court, Colorado should know better. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states cannot exclude families from government benefits because of their faith. We’re confident the Court will say the same thing here and put a stop to Colorado’s no-Catholics-need-apply rules.”

Families in the case remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will side with their appeal.

“All we want is the freedom to choose the best preschool for our kids without being punished for our faith," Dan and Lisa Sheley, Catholic parents of seven and Becket clients in the case, said in a statement provided to Blaze News. "Colorado promised families a universal preschool program, then cut out families like ours because we chose a Catholic education. We pray the Supreme Court will remind Colorado that universal means everyone.”

“Colorado is punishing young religious families. In a state that loudly preaches inclusion, it’s shocking to see Colorado go out of its way to exclude families like mine," Erika Navarrete Nagle, a Catholic mother of three whose children attend St. Mary’s, told Blaze News. "I hope the Supreme Court will make it clear that no family should be targeted for what they believe.”

The Supreme Court will hear arguments for this case in the fall.

Editor's note: The author attended St. Mary Catholic Parish and School.

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

Archangel Michael statue may yet win the battle against the ACLU after an army of warriors rallies to its cause



A Massachusetts city in the Greater Boston area commissioned a pair of 10-foot-tall bronze statues heavy with cultural and historical significance to honor police and firefighters outside their new public safety headquarters.

Upon learning that the city of Quincy's new statues — one depicting Florian, a third-century firefighting Roman Christian, and the other depicting the winged archangel Michael stepping on the head of a demon — also carried religious significance, the American Civil Liberties Union and a handful of secularizing activist groups joined a few locals in suing last May to block the installation.

'The ACLU has pitted itself against the very heroes who keep our communities safe.'

The city, which will make its case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court with the help of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty on May 6, has received an outpouring of support from first responders' groups and unions, religious groups, and others keen to defend free speech found intolerable by thin-skinned critics.

The International Association of Fire Fighters and its Bay State affiliate, among the groups that submitted court filings in support of the city, noted that "for the firefighting community, there is perhaps no better image for this project than St. Florian."

Norfolk Superior Court Judge William Sullivan, the Democratic appointee who blocked the planned installation in October, previously argued that the statues "serve no discernable secular purpose."

The IAFF flatly rejected that argument.

RELATED: Whose past predicts your future?

Education Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

"Florian, to be sure, is venerated as a Catholic saint. But that isn't why the City of Quincy is putting him on its public safety building," the IAFF's court filing reads. "Rather, that choice reflects a centuries-old tradition that honors Florian — entirely apart from his significance in the Catholic Church — as a symbol of the courage, selflessness, and sacrifice of firefighters around the world."

Moreover, the association underscored that Florian's legend is now "part of the cultural fabric of firefighting."

The National Association of Police Organizations similarly said of the St. Michael statue, "Although Michael's origins are religious, his significance extends far beyond that context. He is the archetype of core law-enforcement virtues: justice, courage, leadership, and defense of the innocent."

The National Fraternal Order of Police echoed this understanding and drove the point home:

The erection of these statues shows no semblance of religious subordination or favoritism. For this Court to prohibit these statues would not only run contrary to the text and purpose of the Religion Clauses of the Massachusetts Constitution but would also rob the people of Quincy of a special opportunity to honor their firefighters and police officers.

While the Knights of Columbus highlighted America's and Massachusetts' rich histories of acknowledging religion in public art, the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team and the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty discussed the likely fallout of the ACLU prevailing in this case and how that result might disproportionately impact minority faiths.

They noted, for example, that a ruling against Quincy might set a precedent for denying practicing Jews the ability to build an eruv in public — a demarcated area, created by placing nearly invisible wires on existing utility poles, that permits Jews to carry essential items on the Sabbath.

The American Legion said in its filing that giving the secularists a win here "would put the Massachusetts Constitution on a collision court with the federal one." The Legion noted further that while a state may not favor a religion, it "also may not favor nonreligion by adopting a posture of hostility towards faith."

Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket and attorney for Quincy, stated, "By picking this fight, the ACLU has pitted itself against the very heroes who keep our communities safe."

"This broad coalition of firefighters and police — along with diverse faith communities, public policy experts, and legal scholars — proves just how out of touch the ACLU has become," Davis continued. "We’re hopeful the court will see through this attack and side with Quincy."

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

Christians win BIG: New York caves on forcing nuns and churches to fund abortion after knockout SCOTUS ruling



Christian organizations spent nearly a decade fighting New York's requirement that they pay for abortions. They came out victorious on Friday, thanks in part to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June.

In January 2017, then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that the Empire State would require employers to not only pay for contraceptive drugs and devices but for "all medically necessary abortion services."

Cuomo, a Catholic, said that the mandate was one of a number of regulatory actions that would "help ensure that whatever happens at the federal level, women in our state will have cost-free access to reproductive health care."

'The state has given up its disgraceful campaign.'

While there was a religious exemption built into the mandate, it was extremely narrow.

As satisfaction of the mandate would violate their deeply held religious beliefs, a coalition of Christian groups ineligible for the exemption — including the Roman Catholic Dioceses of Albany and Ogdensburg, the Anglican Sisterhood of St. Mary, Our Savior's Lutheran Church, and First Bible Baptist Church — sued the State of New York, claiming it violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause and both religion clauses.

After years of legal setbacks, the Christian plaintiffs' fight was renewed in late 2021 when the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a mandate-affirming ruling by the state appellate court and ordered it to reconsider the case in light of its 2021 decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia. In Fulton, the SCOTUS ruled that the City of Philadelphia had violated Catholic Social Services' free exercise of religion by requiring the foster care agency to endorse homosexual couples as foster parents.

RELATED: Biden's faith attacks backfire: Support for religious liberties soars to record high under Trump, new report shows

Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images

Again, the state appellate court considered the case, and again it ruled against the plaintiffs and in favor of the abortion mandate.

The Supreme Court took up the Christian groups' subsequent appeal, and in June 2025, it ordered the Court of Appeals of New York to reconsider the case in light of its June 5 ruling in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor. In that particular case, the high court unanimously held that by denying the Catholic Charities Bureau a tax exemption that is available for religious entities, Wisconsin had violated the First Amendment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in the opinion for the court, "When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny."

That Supreme Court ruling boded poorly for New York, whose abortion mandate had a similarly narrow and problematic religious exemption.

On Friday, New York agreed to surrender its effort to coerce the Christian plaintiffs into funding abortions.

"For nearly a decade, New York bureaucrats tried to strong-arm nuns into paying for abortions because they serve all those in need," said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket and attorney for the plaintiffs, in a statement. "At long last, the state has given up its disgraceful campaign. This victory confirms that the government cannot punish religious ministries for living out their faith by serving everyone."

"The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that religious groups shouldn't be bullied for staying true to their faith," Windham added.

Per the terms of the settlement with self-identified Catholic Gov. Kathy Hochul's administration, the following entities will now be recognized as religious employers, thereby securing exemptions from the mandate: the Roman Catholic Dioceses of Albany and Ogdensburg and the Catholic Charities thereof; St. Gregory the Great Roman Catholic Church Society of Amherst; First Bible Baptist Church; Our Savior's Lutheran Church of Albany; Teresian House Nursing Home Company, Inc.; Teresian House Housing Corporation; and Depaul Housing Management Corporation.

The Sisterhood of Mary and the Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Brooklyn have dropped their free exercise claims against the state.

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

Biden's faith attacks backfire: Support for religious liberties soars to record high under Trump, new report shows



Against a backdrop of mounting attacks on churches, the Biden administration worked ardently to curb religious liberties wherever they came into conflict with the left's radical agenda.

For example:

  • the Biden Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implemented a rule requiring employers — including Christian organizations — to accommodate workers' efforts to abort their unborn children;
  • the EEOC attempted to force Christians to pay for employees' sex-rejection mutilations;
  • the Biden Department of Health and Human Services attempted to bar Christian providers who hold biblical and scientifically grounded views about sex and marriage from the foster-care system; and
  • under Biden, a Catholic, the FBI characterized conservative Catholics as potential domestic terrorists and proposed to infiltrate Catholic churches as "threat mitigation."

It's clear from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's latest Religious Freedom Index that unlike the administration voted out of power in 2024, the American people overwhelmingly — and increasingly — support religious liberties.

'Our nation still believes that our first freedom belongs at the heart of our culture; not as a source of conflict, but as a foundation for overcoming it.'

Over the past six years, Becket has tracked public opinion on religious freedom. The legal group's index for 2025 published on Friday registered the highest cumulative score for public support of religious freedom to-date — 71 on a scale from 0 to 100 where 0 indicates complete opposition to religious liberty and 100 indicates robust support.

This amounts to a dramatic shift, especially when compared to 2020, when the composite score was 66.

Whereas in 2020, 52% of respondents agreed that religious freedom is inherently public and that Americans should be able to share their faith in public spaces, that number jumped to 57% in the latest RFI.

There was an even bigger shift when it came to support for parents' ability to opt out of public school curricula they believe to be inappropriate — a jump from 63% in 2021 to 73% in 2025.

RELATED: 6 ways I'm using 2026 to deepen my relationship with God

Photo by ANOEK DE GROOT/AFP via Getty Images

When asked specifically about the Supreme Court's June 2025 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, 62% of respondents signaled support for the high court's decision to side with the Maryland parents who wanted to protect their children from LGBT propaganda in Montgomery County Public Schools.

On the question of whether public funding for education should be available to all families, including those who choose religious schools, 77% of respondents said they were mostly or completely in favor.

The report noted that "although this year's Index found that Americans have cooled on the benefits of religion to society and are skeptical of institutions, they unify around the simple principles of religious freedom for all, even in difficult cases that invite scrutiny or controversy."

A clear majority, 58%, of Americans said they support the right of a Christian baker to decline to make cakes that conflict with her sincere religious views.

Sixty-one percent of respondents said that the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion should protect Catholic priests from having to break the seal of confession as would have been required by Washington state Democrats' now-enjoined Senate Bill 5375.

There was markedly less support for the Christian counselor in the case Chiles v. Salazar who challenged Colorado's prohibition on so-called "conversion therapy" for non-straight youth. Only 47% expressed support for her ability to provide talk therapy to children to help them overcome their gender dysphoria.

"Year after year, the Index has made clear that religious liberty remains one of our most cherished values," Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News.

"Even amid deep divisions, our nation still believes that our first freedom belongs at the heart of our culture; not as a source of conflict, but as a foundation for overcoming it," continued Rienzi. "The work before us is to see that freedom protected for our children and theirs in the years to come."

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

A Christian student athletic club was thrown off campus in California because of its traditional stance on marriage. Members fought back and won.



A Christian student athletic club in California was denigrated, protested, then thrown off campus in 2019 on account of its traditional views on marriage. When the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and student leaders' requests to have their club reinstated fell on deaf ears, they took legal action with the help of the religious liberty group Becket and the Christian Legal Society.

In a major upset for LGBT activists and other cultural imperialists in the San Jose Unified School District, a federal court delivered the evangelical FCA a decisive win Wednesday, ordering the reinstatement of its chapter at Pioneer High School.

Rigo Lopez, the local FCA leader for Bay Area schools, responded to the victory for religious liberty, stating, "FCA is excited to be able to get back to serving our campuses. ... Our FCA teams have long enjoyed strong relationships with teachers and students in the past, and we are looking forward to that again."

Daniel Blomberg, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said, "This is a huge win for these brave kids, who persevered through adversity and never took their eye off the ball: equal access with integrity."

"Today’s ruling ensures religious students are again treated fairly in San Jose and throughout California," added Blomberg.

No room for Christian beliefs

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes student club, founded in 1954, seeks to "lead every coach and athlete into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ and His church."

Despite meeting at San Jose Unified School District schools in California for over a decade without incident, the group was thrown off campus after a single social studies teacher at Pioneer High School denounced the organization during class time, claiming its views on marriage were "bulls***."

Peter Glasser, the teacher in question, had learned that while all students were welcome to participate in FCA events and to join its ranks, chapter leaders were required to affirm the group's statements of faith and sexual purity, reported the Washington Examiner.

Among the statements of faith, listed on the FCA's website, are the declarations that: the Bible is the word of God; there is "only one God who eternally exists in three persons"; Jesus Christ is God; and "acceptance of Jesus Christ and the corresponding renewal of the Holy Spirit is the only path to salvation."

The sexual purity statement required that leaders affirm that "sexual intimacy is to be expressed only within the context of marriage," defined as "exclusively the union of one man and one woman."

According to court documents, in April 2019, Glasser obtained these statements, posted them on the whiteboard in his first period class, and appended a note to them which read, "I am deeply saddened that a club on Pioneer's campus asks its members to affirm these statements. How do you feel?"

Extra to inviting criticism of Christian students' beliefs by other students, Glasser, who reportedly suggested the FCA's beliefs were tantamount to harassment, pressed principal Herb Espiritu to take action.

A school leadership committee, which included Glasser, met on April 30, 2019, determining the FCA's "pledge" clashed with the "core values" of the high school.

Espiritu brought the decision to the attention of SJUSD administrators, then two days later informed the student leaders of the Pioneer FCA that the district had stripped the group of its approval.

Within weeks, all three FCA student clubs in the district had been labeled as "discriminatory" and similarly booted off campus whilst identitarian groups, LGBT activist groups, and even the Satanic Temple Club remained unscathed, notwithstanding their own dogmatic views and rules.

Battle in the courts

Two students filed a lawsuit in April 2020, seeking to restore the club's equal access to meet on campus. A district court shut them down. They nevertheless persevered and appealed the decision.

On Aug. 29, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in the Christian students' favor, concluding that the "plaintiffs [were] likely to succeed on their Free Exercise claims alleging that the defendants have selectively enforced their non-discrimination polices."

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's earlier denial of the FCA's motion for a preliminary injunction and directed the district court to order the group's reinstatement.

The San Jose Unified School District did not handle the decision well.

Rather than accept that it could no longer flout the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act by way of discriminating against the FCA's religious leadership standards, it shut down all student groups for the fall 2022 semester and appealed the decision.

Christian virtue prevails

On Jan. 18, 2023, the the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case before a panel of eleven federal judges.

In a 9-2 decision issued Wednesday, the court killed perhaps the SJUSD's last hope of boxing out the Christian group, ruling that the FCA and other such clubs do not have to surrender on matters of faith to enjoy equal access to campus.

"The District, rather than treating (the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) like comparable secular student groups whose membership was limited based on criteria including sex, race, ethnicity and gender identity, penalized it based on its religious beliefs," said the ruling.

The court stressed that "[i]ndividual preferences based on certain characteristics and criteria serve important purposes for these groups"; that just as the "Senior Women club" can have all-female members and various honor clubs can require benchmarks pertaining to members' moral character, "it makes equal sense that a religious group be allowed to require that its leaders agree with the group's most fundamental beliefs."

In her opinion, Judge Consuelo María Callahan noted that while anti-discrimination policies "serve worthy causes ... those policies may not themselves be utilized in a manner that transgresses or supersedes the government's constitutional commitment to be steadfastly neutral to religion."

Accordingly, "[u]nder the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion and free speech, the government may not 'single out' religious groups 'for special disfavor' compared to similar secular groups," wrote Callahan.

Judge Danielle J. Forrest called the SJUSD's treatment of FCA student members "shocking and fundamentally at odds with bedrock principles that have guided our Republic since the beginning."

Concerning the FCA's win Wednesday, Steve McFarland, director of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom, said, "Public schools should respect every student's religious beliefs and treat every student with dignity. ... We are grateful the court has reaffirmed this foundational right of every student."

2022 FCA Presentationyoutu.be

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

Lawsuit: Massachusetts refuses to allow couple to foster or adopt children because of their Christian faith



A Christian conservative couple in Massachusetts has been denied the ability to adopt or foster children because of the perception by state officials that "their faith is not supportive and neither are they" of the gender and sexuality of hypothetical "LGBTQIA+ youth."

Cognizant that the "discriminatory" standard applied to them would ultimately mean a prohibition on all families like theirs of various faiths, Catholics Mitty and Catherine "Kitty" Burke have taken the commonwealth to court with the help of the religious liberty group Becket.

Parents in search of a child

Mike Burke is an Iraq War veteran. His wife, Kitty, is a former paraprofessional for special-needs kids. They are both highly involved in their church, where they perform music for mass.

After long struggling with infertility, they resolved to share their gifts, home, and love with a vulnerable foster child.

Their proposed help and stability could go a long way. After all, according to the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, there are well over 1,521 children currently without families who could benefit from a stable pair of doting parents.

The Burkes applied to become foster parents in 2022.

In addition to drawn-out interviews and various home assessments, they completed at least 30 hours of mandatory training to the satisfaction of their instructor, who reported to the DCF that Mike and Kitty Burke "have a solid understanding of how trauma can affect people, as Mike spoke openly about his PTSD as a Veteran. Both were active participants throughout MAPP and their comments often helped to enrich the training. It is anticipated that they will work cooperatively with DCF throughout their adoption journey."

Linda-Jeanne Mack of 18 Degrees, who had conducted their home interviews, centered a great deal of her focus on Mike and Kitty Burke's views about sexuality, court documents show.

The DCF indicated in its report for the third quarter of this fiscal year that 43% of recently processed children in the 3-17 age group identified as female; 45% identified as male; 3% were missing an identifier in their records; 4% did not wish to answer; and a handful, not amounting to 1% of the total, ascribed to some gender-dysphoric identity. The plurality of kids who volunteered an answer indicated they were straight.

When asked "how they'd feel if their child identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer, or any other sexuality," Kitty reportedly said, "There's nothing wrong with it, I'm going to love you the same, but I believe you would need to live a chaste life."

However, both potential parents made clear that they did not reject biological sex and held fast to their religious convictions, unswayed by the ideological fads of the day.

Christians need not apply

Mack wrote in her report that the couple has "a lot of strengths ... and really seems to understand adoption/foster care," but expressed concern whether the Burkes' beliefs about gender and sexuality would permit them to be "supportive of LGBTQIA+ youth," adding, "Their faith is not supportive and neither are they."

The social worker is said to have further noted her "apprehension about recommending [the Burkes] as a resource family due to the couple's views related to people who identify as LGBTQIA++ . . . . They are heavily involved in their Catholic Church and cite their religious views as their primary reason for seeing LGBTQIA++ individuals in this way."

Whereas Mack highlighted her concerns about the Burkes' lack of woke bona fides but did not explicitly recommend that they should be barred from fostering, court documents show that officials linked to the DCF were more than happy to go the distance to crush the couple's dreams.

Like Mack, the Licensing Review Team, under the control and responsibility of the DCF, acknowledged the Burkes' many strong qualities, but ultimately denied their application, stating, "Issue(s) of concern for which the couple's license study was denied is based on the couple's statements/responses regarding placement of children who identified LGBTQIA."

The license study concluded, "Based on this families [sic] beliefs about children who identify as LGBTQIA+ and after a careful review of this assessment by the regional DCF licensing and training review team, the Department is unable to issue a license for them to foster/adopt at this time."

The Burkes said in a statement, "After months of interviews and training, and after years of heartbreak, we were on the verge of finally becoming parents. ... We were absolutely devastated to learn that Massachusetts would rather children sleep in the hallways of hospitals than let us welcome children in need into our home."

The Burkes' mention of children sleeping in hospitals appears to reference the claim by DCF workers last year that children had taken to sleeping on bed-less office floors, as reported by the Boston Globe.

Following the DCF licensing team's decision, the Burkes asked for an explanation for the ruling, then requested a fair hearing.

Upon seeing the allegedly "discriminatory" rationale behind the DCF's decisions, they determined they would have to take legal action.

Burke v. Walsh

Becket filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Mike and Kitty Burke in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 8 "to ensure that families like the Burkes can offer loving homes to children in need amid the state's foster care crisis."

The religious liberty group noted, "This sad conflict was entirely avoidable. Massachusetts wants to maximize foster families and rightly protect potential foster parents from religious discrimination. Instead, Massachusetts turned its policies into a ban on certain religious beliefs. This is as unconstitutional as it is unnecessary."

The couple's lawsuit claims multiple violations of their First Amendment rights, particularly the Free Exercise Clause, and highlights how the DCF's decision reeks of religious hostility, categorical discrimination, religious gerrymandering, and compelled speech.

The suit states, "The denial of the Burkes' application to serve as foster parents substantially burdens their religious exercise because it forces them to choose between the opportunity to become foster and adoptive parents for children in need and maintaining their religious beliefs," adding that the DCF's decision was ultimately "based on an individualized assessment of their religious beliefs."

Furthermore, the suit alleges, "DCF has conditioned its approval of the Burkes' application on their willingness to affirm DCF's preferred view of gender and human sexuality."

Kate Walsh, secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services, and Linda Spears, commissioner of the DCF, are among those named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Extra to pressing the federal court to prevent state officials from declining to confer a foster care license upon the Burkes, the suit seeks compensatory damages against the defendants along with attorney fees.

Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said in a statement, "It takes the heroic effort of parents like Mike and Kitty to provide vulnerable children with loving homes through foster care."

"Massachusetts' actions leave the Burkes, and families of other faiths, out in the cold. How can they explain this to children waiting for a home?" added Windham.

The Catholic News Agency indicated that neither Spears' nor Walsh's offices have yet responded to requests for comment.

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

Christian university fights back: Seattle Pacific University sues Washington AG for violating its First Amendment rights



Seattle Pacific University, a Christian university affiliated with the Free Methodist Church, has filed a lawsuit against the attorney general of the state of Washington, Bob Ferguson, for intruding on its private religious convictions, private communications, and hiring practices.

On Wednesday, SPU filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Washington, alleging that Ferguson had violated its constitutional rights when he initiated an investigation into the school's hiring practices after receiving complaints that the school had discriminated against gay applicants.

Early last month, Ferguson had sent a letter to SPU's attorney, claiming that he had "learned of information that suggests that the University may utilize employment policies and practices that permit or require discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including by prohibiting same-sex marriage and activity."

Ferguson then demanded that members of SPU provide to him all SPU documentation regarding its policies about sexual orientation, any instances in which gay applicants had been denied employment or terminated based on sexual orientation, any complaints lodged in connection to policies regarding sexual orientation, and the job descriptions of all positions at SPU, both faculty and staff.

Ferguson then gave SPU until June 22 to furnish his office with the solicited documentation. Rather than comply, however, SPU filed the federal lawsuit against Ferguson.

"As part of its religious commitment, Seattle Pacific expects its faculty, staff and leadership to agree with the University’s statement of faith and to live out that faith as a model for others, including by living according to the University’s religious teachings on marriage," the lawsuit states. "Seattle Pacific relies on its faculty, staff, and leadership to provide a Christian higher education by integrating faith and learning."

"Seattle Pacific holds to traditional Christian beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality, in alignment with the Free Methodist Church," the lawsuit also states.

The lawsuit expresses the hope that a federal court will affirm SPU's First Amendment rights to operate according to the dictates of its religious faith, issue an injunction against Ferguson and the state's AG office to prevent any future interference in the private practices of SPU, and prompt the AG's office to compensate SPU for legal fees associated with this case and any "such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just."

The legal organization Becket, “a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths,” is representing SPU in this case.

Becket issued a statement regarding Ferguson's inquiries and SPU's lawsuit:

"Seattle Pacific University is asking a federal court to stop Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson from interfering in the religious decisions of a Christian university seeking to remain true to its faith and mission. Mr. Ferguson recently singled out Seattle Pacific because of its Christian beliefs, demanding information about the school’s religious hiring practices and employees. For years, American courts have been clear that external officials cannot dictate how religious institutions live out their faith commitments. Our laws protect religious universities from unlawful demands by governmental officials.”