Trump Adviser Offers Polite Gesture For Superstar Rapper. Reporter Jumps To Salacious Conclusion.
'Please share the full clip for context'
America's best and worst states for religious freedom — and what it means for our future
Now is a good time for religion in America.
President Trump has established the White House Religious Liberty Commission, led by a diverse group of religious leaders and scholars, including Mary Margaret Bush, Napa Legal’s own former executive director. The commission is identifying some of the nation’s most pressing religious liberty issues and developing plans for action.
Lawmakers should take advantage of the moment to enact durable protections that will outlast any administration.
The U.S. Supreme Court, too, has protected religious liberty in several crucial cases. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the court held that it is unconstitutional to exclude religious schools from generally available government funding programs.In Kennedy v. Bremerton, it found that coach Joseph Kennedy’s postgame prayers did not violate the First Amendment. This year brought additional victories in Mahmoud v. Taylor, where the court upheld parents’ rights to opt their children out of LGBT content in elementary school classes, and Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin, where a unanimous court prevented state officials from favoring some religions over others.
These encouraging developments might tempt Americans to believe that the battle for nationwide religious freedom has already been won.
Yet even with such powerful forces defending religious liberty at the federal level, state laws affecting religious organizations remain critical for ensuring that everyday Americans do not suffer persecution for their firmly held religious beliefs.
Consider what just happened in Washington state.
In 2025, Catholic priests there faced an impossible choice between obeying their faith and complying with state law. A new Washington state statute required clergy to report instances of abuse or neglect they heard during confession, despite the Church’s centuries-old sacramental seal. The law singled out priests while giving others, like lawyers, a pass, and it carried the threat of jail time and fines.
Thankfully, a federal court blocked the law before it could take effect, ruling in Etienne v. Ferguson that the state could not force clergy to violate the sacred seal of confession.
But that case never should have been necessary. Washington’s law reflected the same pattern Napa Legal’s research has uncovered repeatedly: When state laws are weak or hostile to faith-based organizations, those organizations are left vulnerable even when the federal government and Supreme Court appear friendly to religion.
This month, the Napa Legal Institute released the third edition of the Faith and Freedom Index, an analysis of state laws across the country that either help or hinder religious organizations. Whether national politics seem to favor or oppose religious liberty, state laws remain central to its long-term health.
The states with the top overall scores were:
- Alabama
- Kansas
- Indiana
- Texas
- Mississippi
The five lowest scores went to:
- Michigan
- Washington
- Massachusetts
- West Virginia
- Maryland
What distinguishes the states at the top of the list from those at the bottom? Several types of laws come into play. For example, the index’s highest performing states have built frameworks that proactively safeguard religious organizations. Their laws provide broad protections for religious exercise and create environments where ministries can thrive.
By contrast, it’s no coincidence that Washington state ranks near the bottom. The same state that passed one of the most intrusive laws in recent memory also reflects on the Index a legal system that makes it far too easy for governments to intrude on matters of faith.
That is why it is important to strike while the iron is hot. When the federal government is friendly to religious liberty, that is precisely the time to act. Political conditions can change quickly, but good laws endure. Lawmakers should take advantage of the moment to enact durable protections that will outlast any administration.
RELATED: Why Trump's religious liberty agenda terrifies the left
There are many reasons why state laws remain decisive. First, state statutes can still contradict clear federal precedent. After the Supreme Court struck downWisconsin’s discriminatory law in Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin, a similar law remained in effect in New York. Religious organizations there had to continue the litigation even after the Supreme Court had essentially decided the issue.
It is also not enough for states to rely solely on constitutional protections or a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
These safeguards are vital but not sufficient. When a religious organization’s hiring or service conflicts with state “nondiscrimination” laws, it should not have to spend years in court to prove its right to operate according to its beliefs. States can and should pass clear exemptions that prevent such conflicts from ever arising.
Finally, state tax and regulatory codes can have a major impact on whether faith-based organizations thrive. Many religious nonprofits are treated like for-profit corporations, subject to tax regimes and administrative filings, fees, and audits that make it hard for them to operate. States should look closely at such laws and remove unnecessary burdens that divert precious time and resources away from ministry and service.
No matter who sits in the White House or on the Supreme Court, state laws remain a foundation of religious liberty. The Faith and Freedom Index remains an important tool to protect and foster the work of religious organizations and religious liberty in general.
Voters should consider how laws in their states burden religion when they cast their votes. Policymakers should pay close attention to laws that may seem tedious but can make or break the needed work of religious organizations. And our government leaders should work to enact laws that foster religious liberty, so that religion can serve its proper role in contributing to the common good.
Trump Action On Nigeria Highlights Expanding Islamist Violence Against Christians Worldwide
Christians in Africa face down the barrels of guns, but believers in the West are facing a quieter, subtler campaign of marginalization.How Sharia law violates everything the founding fathers built
From the moment I first studied the United States Constitution through the lens of scripture, I’ve been struck by how carefully our founders embedded God-given liberty into the fabric of our nation. Freedom of conscience, equality before God, and protection from government overreach are not just political ideas; they are biblical principles.
The more I study, the clearer it becomes that Islamic systems like sharia law, enforced as government policy abroad, stand in sharp contrast to both the freedoms our Constitution guarantees and the liberties scripture upholds.
Christians must be informed, discerning, and proactive in defending freedoms that allow people to come to God freely.
Sharia law, when enforced as government policy, conflicts with constitutional freedom and biblical principles of liberty, including protections for personal conscience, speech, and moral choice.
Sharia law vs. constitutional liberty
Sharia law is a system derived from Islamic religious texts, guiding personal conduct and societal governance.
In countries where it is enforced, it often dictates punishments, civil law, and social norms based on religious authority rather than individual liberty. This approach contrasts sharply with the U.S. Constitution, which separates church and state, ensuring that government does not dictate religious belief or practice.
Scripture emphasizes the importance of freedom in Christ. Galatians 5:1 reminds us, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” The Constitution mirrors this principle, protecting Americans from coercion in matters of conscience, ensuring that individuals may follow God freely without fear of government reprisal.
Real-world examples of sharia governance
When we examine Muslim nations governed by sharia-based systems, the consequences for personal freedom are clear.
In countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan, civil and criminal codes often derive directly from religious texts. These laws enforce strict moral codes, restrict freedom of speech, and impose severe punishments on offenses such as theft, adultery, or apostasy.
RELATED: The Islamification of America is well under way
Punishments include public lashings, stonings, and even amputations for certain crimes. LGBTQ individuals face particularly harsh treatment, including imprisonment, corporal punishment, or death. Women’s rights and freedom of expression are often restricted as well.
These policies illustrate a system in which government enforces religious conformity, which directly conflicts with the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. The U.S. founders recognized that human governments are fallible; they designed laws to protect liberty and allow people to make moral and spiritual choices voluntarily rather than under coercion.
The biblical perspective on liberty and government
Scripture provides a firm framework for understanding liberty. Romans 13:1-4 teaches that governments are instituted to punish wrongdoers and maintain order, but within limits. Civil authority is meant to restrain evil while upholding justice, not to enforce religious orthodoxy.
John 8:32 reminds us, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” True freedom, in both spiritual and civil contexts, comes from the ability to choose God and live according to His moral order voluntarily.
The Constitution’s protections for freedom of religion, speech, and equal protection under the law reflect these same biblical principles. They ensure that no one is coerced into adherence to a particular religious code, preserving liberty and human dignity.
Sharia-based governance, when implemented as law, replaces personal conscience with mandatory religious observance, undermining the freedoms that God and the founders intended.
How Christians should respond
Loving our neighbors does not mean ignoring the truth about systems of governance. But discernment calls us to distinguish between individuals and systems of law that impose religious authority on entire societies.
Christians are called to defend freedom and truth, speaking boldly yet compassionately.
Understanding the differences between sharia-based governance and constitutional liberty is not purely academic; it’s practical. Nations that merge religion and state often face suppression of speech, persecution of minorities, and human rights violations. Christians must be informed, discerning, and proactive in defending freedoms that allow people to come to God freely.
Practical engagement may include:
- Praying for wisdom to navigate cultural and political issues.
- Educating others about the value of freedom of conscience.
- Participating in civic discourse in ways that honor God while upholding liberty.
Sharia law and the protection of minorities
One area that starkly highlights the contrast is treatment of LGBTQ individuals. In sharia-governed regions, homosexuality is often criminalized, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to corporal punishment, even death. Theft or other criminal offenses can result in amputations, and adultery may be punished by stoning.
Christians are charged to uphold liberty, educate themselves on systems that restrict freedom, and advocate for policies that reflect God’s justice while protecting human conscience.
These practices illustrate the deep conflict between enforced religious law and personal freedom, especially for vulnerable minorities.
In contrast, the U.S. Constitution protects all citizens, ensuring legal equality, freedom of conscience, and due process. The biblical principle that every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) supports the need to defend dignity and liberty for all.
Historical lessons and modern implications
History demonstrates that societies enforcing religious law as government policy often struggle with oppression and instability. By embedding freedom and separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution creates space for citizens to practice faith voluntarily, without fear of legal coercion.
As Christians, we can see how these principles align with biblical teaching and recognize why coercive religious legal systems are incompatible with God’s design for human freedom.
Standing for freedom with compassion
Understanding these contrasts calls us to vigilance, prayer, and action. Christians are charged to uphold liberty, educate themselves on systems that restrict freedom, and advocate for policies that reflect God’s justice while protecting human conscience.
Loving our neighbors does not mean compromising truth; it means defending freedom in a way that is rooted in Christ’s example of compassion and moral clarity.
By examining Islam as a governance system, we see clearly the importance of constitutional and biblical liberty. Freedom of conscience, protection of minorities, and the ability to choose God freely are not negotiable — they are foundational to both faith and the American experiment.
Standing for these freedoms is an act of love, truth, and obedience to God.
This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Arch Kennedy's blog.
After Losing At SCOTUS, Wisconsin Finds A New Way To ‘Target’ Catholic Charities
Wisconsin is seeking to deny a tax exemption not only to the CCB, but to all such religious and nonreligious organizations across the state.Nigerian Christians are being murdered by Islamic radicals. This congressman has had enough.
Republican Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana is leading the charge alongside Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas to protect Nigerian Christians who are being persecuted and slain by jihadist groups.
Stutzman introduced the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act on Tuesday in the House, an identical companion bill to Cruz's legislation, Blaze News learned. This legislation is in response to the "rapidly deteriorating" conditions for Christians in Nigeria, who are being abducted, targeted, and murdered by the tens of thousands.
'We must use the targeted tools we have at our disposal.'
Stutzman's bill would protect Christians by placing targeted sanctions on Nigerian officials who facilitate violence and enforce Sharia law against religious minorities, according to the bill text obtained exclusively by Blaze News. The bill would also designate Nigeria as a country of particular concern and ensure that the jihadist militant groups Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa remain designated as entities of particular concern.
"It is the responsibility of the United States to protect religious freedom worldwide," Stutzman told Blaze News. "Implementing Sharia law and condoning the murder of innocent people is barbaric."
RELATED: Nigerian Christians face latest massacre by militant Muslims
"We must use the targeted tools we have at our disposal to combat religious violence in all its forms," Stutzman told Blaze News. "I am proud to partner with Senator Cruz to introduce this important legislation, which will create real consequences for those responsible for violence and save the lives of thousands of Christians who are facing persecution."
Since the jihadist group Boko Haram launched its insurgency in 2009, over 125,000 Christians in Nigeria have been murdered. In just 2025 alone, these jihadists have reportedly murdered over 7,000 Christians and abducted an additional 7,800, destroying roughly 100 churches every month.
"Nigerian Christians are being targeted and executed for their faith by Islamist terrorist groups, and are being forced to submit to Sharia law and blasphemy laws across Nigeria," Cruz said in a statement.
RELATED: Blaze News investigates: Why are Islamists targeting Catholic priests?
"It is long past time to impose real costs on the Nigerian officials who facilitate these activities, and my Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act uses new and existing tools to do exactly that," Cruz added. "I urge my colleagues to advance this critical legislation expeditiously."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Amid The Genocide Of Nigerian Christians, Congress Must Act
To disregard the eradication of Christianity in Nigeria would embolden jihadists and signal that the blood of the martyrs means nothing to us.Why America needs faithful Christians now more than ever
As America approaches its 250th anniversary, urgent questions arise about the role Christianity should play in public life.
In recent months, the unapologetic, personal Christian witness of public officials — and their open collaboration with pastors, priests, and other faith leaders — has drawn new attention. For me, these moments have been deeply moving and inspiring.
The founders were clear: Free institutions depend on moral citizens, and morality is nurtured by religion.
For many in the mainstream media, however, this has been profoundly unsettling, prompting warnings that the nation is sliding toward a form of “Christian nationalism.”
Are they right?
The question may be something of a red herring, but it’s worth addressing. Faith has always shaped American life. The founders never intended to build a secular vacuum; they expected religion to cultivate the virtues that a free people need. At the same time, they knew that belief cannot be imposed. True liberty demands space for religion to flourish — and restraint against coercion.
Living authentically as believers in public life is not the same as enforcing religion on others. The former honors conscience and its freedom while allowing faith to enrich society; the latter distorts faith and undermines pluralism.
Charlie Kirk’s memorial service last month highlighted the power of Christian witness in public life. His widow, Erika, speaking through grief, declared, “I forgive him because it was what Christ did and is what Charlie would do.” Her words reminded a nation mired in resentment that Christianity’s strength lies in free, authentic witness. Much has been made of President Trump’s off-message remark, “I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them.”
But rather than dwell on it, we should note that he later suggested Erika’s example might move him toward forgiveness — a sign of the quiet influence of authentic faith.
Other public officials like Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary Marco Rubio spoke from the heart and leaned on their Christian faith.
It’s here that we must remain careful: If religious witness is perceived as a partisan tool, its power is weakened. The church’s mission is not political victory but the salvation of souls, offered freely to hearts and minds.
RELATED: Charlie Kirk's legacy exposes a corrosive lie — and now it's time to choose
Christianity’s very public witness in our nation extends beyond Charlie’s memorial. The members of the presidential Religious Liberty Commission include influential evangelical and Catholic leaders as well as a prominent Jewish rabbi. They have spoken openly about their beliefs and their conviction that faith will heal many of our nation’s divisions.
At the Commission’s third hearing held last week, testimony highlighted ongoing pressures faced by people of faith working to educate our nation’s youth. Catholic Fr. Robert Sirico described relentless targeting by state officials of Sacred Heart Academy, a private, Catholic parochial school in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Sirico deftly clarified the line between faith and power during Q&A: “I’m not advocating the creation of a theocracy. I’m very happy to have a cultural competition of ideas.”
Sirico’s words remind us that resisting coercion is not the same as desiring the control of the public square; it is the defense of the right to live one’s faith fully and contribute accordingly.
Contrast this with the temptation of adherents of Christian nationalism to weaponize the faith for worldly power and control. Such ideologies blur the necessary distinction between the spiritual and temporal, collapsing them into one.
When that happens, both church and state are diminished. Christ himself made this clear when He told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).
Professor Russell Hittinger, executive director of the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America, has observed that Jesus’ words set apart the heavenly and temporal orders. To confuse them, Hittinger warned, not only misrepresents the mission of the church but also humiliates it because the gospel cannot be reduced to the ambitions of civil power.
Rejecting such ideologies, of course, does not mean ignoring hostility toward Christianity. Believers today are often dismissed as intolerant or branded as bigots.
Yet, the founders were clear: Free institutions depend on moral citizens, and morality is nurtured by religion.
George Washington called religion and morality “indispensable supports” of political prosperity. John Adams warned that the Constitution was made for a “moral and religious people” and is inadequate for any other. At the same time, they recognized that belief must never be forced.
This is why religious pluralism and freedom matter so deeply. The Catholic Church affirmed this in “Dignitatis Humanae,” the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious liberty. It teaches that safeguarding religious freedom benefits both individuals and the Church, while respecting the God-given free will of every person.
America’s constitutional commitment to religious liberty reflects this wisdom, ensuring that Christianity and other faiths can flourish.
The divisions before us are real — but not irreparable. As the nation looks to its semiquincentennial, Christians should reflect on how faith has shaped civic life and be confident that it can help us confront today’s challenges. At the same time, we must resist the temptation to wield political power to impose Christianity.
We are called instead to live our faith visibly, guide others toward justice and mercy, and bear witness to truth through example, persuasion, and love — not through coercion or abuse of authority.
The Federalist’s Guide To The 2025 Supreme Court Term
From challenges to President Trump's tariffs to the longstanding battle over race-based redistricting, the Supreme Court's 2025-2026 term is shaping up to be as exciting as the last.My 3rd Grade Lawsuit Proves You’re Never Too Young To Stand Up For Religious Liberty
Isaiah 7:9 says, 'If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.'Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com