The posture of the technology sector, refusing to cooperate with the FBI and law enforcement regarding the opening of locked and encrypted cell phones used by evildoers, is not just callous, it is harmful.
Judges, like most of us, prefer to resolve matters on the basis of simple issues rather than complex ones. Part of that is due to the need for judicial economy.
Recently, 12 members of the House of Representatives signed on to H.R. 3878, a bill that would launch an investigation into any "role" that might be played by radio, television, and the Internet to supposedly "encourage" the commission of hate crimes.
This term, the U.S. Supreme Court will be considering a religious liberty case so historic that the central issue winds like a distant road all the way back to a question raised 369 years ago: is government above God?
Something significant happened last week when the Supreme Court considered the issue of public prayer: a few of the Justices gave Americans an unusually candid peek behind the judicial curtain, revealing some provocative opinions on the role of faith and the purposes behind the First Amendment's religion clauses.
After Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated President Mohamed Morsi was recently removed from power in Egypt, Islamic radicals went to work in that country. First came the red graffiti that was splashed on Christian churches, homes and shops. Then came the attacks.
In 1947, the Supreme Court changed the American landscape with a single phrase – "wall of separation between Church and State." Those words were borrowed from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist association, and then in the years that followed, it was misapplied by the Court, erecting a kind of Berlin Wall of hostility against various public exercises of faith.
There will be a controversial new reality TV program this fall about church pastors. The only problem is the "church" will be "missing in action."
When the Supreme Court issued its two major decisions on same-sex unions, it meted out two defeats to proponents of biblical marriage, one substantive and one procedural
This week, I was perusing a Facebook page authored by former adherents to Islam who decided to leave it and who are now following Jesus.
Amidst the flurry of recent reports that a large number of Tea Party non-profits had been mercilessly grilled by IRS agents as part of a mine sweep for conservative organizations, news has also surfaced that National Religious Broadcaster member groups had also been caught up in this dragnet.
There is an intriguing, and troubling connection between a flower shop in the State of Washington and the comments by President Obama at the recent Planned Parenthood conclave. Here is how I connect the dots, starting with the comments by the President.
During the arguments before the Supreme Court over same-sex marriage last week, it struck me that what may end up mattering most in the dispute in these two cases over gay unions was addressed the least.
Mr. Zuckerberg, as well as Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt, and Apple's innovative genius, the late Steve Jobs, have all praised, at various times, the concept of expressive "openness" on Internet platforms. Yet, ironically, all three – Facebook, Google and Apple – have been tools of censorship against Christian ideas.