We shouldn’t be surprised when a federal judge actually fulfills the role of the judiciary on a public issue.

We know that judges are assigned to apply the law and the Constitution to a set of facts and issue rulings that keep our public policy within the realm of what legislators have enacted into law. Yet, judges roam far from that mandate so often that when behaves properly, it’s refreshing.

Our newest poster child for judicial sanity is D.C. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who on Aug. 23 blocked, at least temporarily, the Obama administration’s effort to open the federal treasury to scientists destroying human embryos for the sake of research. Seems there’s a law that says you can’t do that.

Click here to ask your Member of Congress and U.S. Senators to urge the Obama administration to stop pursuing this wasteful and illegal expenditure of tax dollars.

It might sound presumptuous to be telling the leader of the free world about one of the most important principles of the government he leads. But after his Aug. 21 radio address to the nation, it seems more than fair to conclude that President Barack Obama doesn’t fully understand the meaning of the First Amendment, because he pressed for passage of a bill that would attack a key provision of it.

World Vision has been a bit of a “crossover” success in the charity world, attracting support from inside the Church and outside it for its mission of caring for orphans. But it is unabashedly Christian, and recently won a court case allowing it to be treated like other religious organizations in its hiring practices.

We’ve followed with interest the war of words between Professor Karl Giberson of the BioLogos Foundation and Eastern Nazarene College, and Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Giberson recently assailed Mohler in The Huffington Post as a result of some observations Mohler made about Charles Darwin, but mostly because Mohler believes that Scripture is true and the theory of evolution therefore must be false.

We’re used to brickbats from the world. But this is essentially an intramural skirmish – two professing Christians arguing about whether fundamental tenets of the faith can be believed. As he usually does, Mohler has the upper hand intellectually here. But anyone convinced that God’s Word must be believed over any man-made hypothesis that contradicts it would come out ahead here as well.

As Rod Parsley has noted in Living on Our Heads, there is no shortage of upside-down thinking. The disturbing thing is that it’s creeping into the Church, as it has in this situation (though there’s a good case to be made that BioLogos isn’t a Christian organization at all). We are proud to stand for biblical truth and the public policy positions that flow from it, even if that view is increasingly challenged as backward and unrealistic.

In a time when biblical morality is increasingly challenged as the only standard for behavior that matters, won’t you help us keep you informed on issues that matter to you? Please consider supporting CMC with a one-time or, better yet, begin a monthly sustaining offering. Click here to give.

Auto-pay is a one-time process that takes the guesswork out of your giving and allows CMC to process your gifts more efficiently. You'll be working alongside Rod Parsley in speaking biblical truth to the powerful forces who would lead this nation astray.

How you respond today will profoundly affect the impact we will be able to make in Washington D.C., and in the popular culture. To sign up for an auto-pay gift to CMC, click here.

The federal Food and Drug Administration sided boldly and unashamedly with the abortion industry Aug. 13, when it approved the sale of a drug commercially known as “ella.” The drug is marketed as a contraceptive, but works by aborting a days-old embryo.

Click here to register your disagreement with the agency’s decision with FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

We continue to sympathize with Arizona government and law-enforcement officials who are being vilified for attempting to deal with a problem the federal government claims for itself but won’t do anything about: illegal immigration. Perhaps the provisions of its bill, much of which has been put on hold by a federal judge, are unnecessarily onerous, but they stem from a legitimate desire to manage a situation that by all accounts is out of control.
The latest development in the debate over illegal immigration is the apparently serious desire of some politicians and other activists to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants.

Count us out.

Like an unexpected breath of fresh air, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pressed “pause” on enforcement of a lower court’s outrageous decision on the definition of marriage Aug. 16.

Well, of course it did. What else was the appeals court going to do – say “amen” to Judge Vaughn Walker’s arrogant and tragically unreasonable disregard for California voters? The common sense embodied in the stay of Walker’s decision made so much sense it was shocking to see from federal courts these days.

It’s easy and, perhaps, correct to reflexively oppose the idea of a mosque located just two blocks from where the World Trade Center towers stood until radical Islamic terrorists brought them down on Sept. 11, 2001. For any community of Muslims to construct what they must know will become a reminder of the horrible events of that day seems, well, a little in-your-face.

We understand if that’s your final answer, and we’re not sure we would disagree. But the deeper we dug into this issue, the more this seemingly black-and-white issue took on a distinct shade of gray.