Breakpoint

Yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that would have required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Not only did Chief Justice John Roberts side with the more liberal justices again, he also gave pro-lifers reasons to doubt Roe would ever be overturned during his tenure.

According to media outlets and the court majority, this case, June Medical Services v. Russo, was essentially “identical” to a Texas law the Court struck down in 2016. In that case, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court ruled that requiring providers to have admitting privileges places an undue burden on women who wanted to access abortion services.

As I argued on BreakPoint back in March, the Louisiana law was similar but not identical. For example, only about thirty percent of women seeking an abortion in Louisiana would have been affected by this law, and requirements for doctors to obtain admitting privileges are less strict in Louisiana than Texas. Because of these differences, a circuit court concluded that abortion providers could more easily comply with this law than the Texas law, and it therefore did not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion.

The majority, including Chief Justice Roberts, felt otherwise. “The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” wrote Roberts.  “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore, Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

Roberts appeal to stare decisis, “the legal term for fidelity to precedent,” is troubling. In its history, the Court has abandoned precedent and overturned more than 300 of its previous rulings. In the 2018 Janus decision, for instance, Roberts had no problem with the court overturning the 1977 Abood decision, which required non-union members to pay union dues.

In 2016, Roberts dissented from the Whole Women’s Health decision. And yet, on Monday, he proclaimed the decision he believed to be wrong then as untouchable precedent today. Even worse, Roberts gave particular deference to the “undue burden test” from the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which is whether or not a particular law or regulation presents any kind of “substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.” These days, “substantial obstacle” essentially means that nothing can get in the way of, slow down, or discourage an abortion in any way.

Justice Clarence Thomas sharply disagreed, not only with the majority opinion, but specifically with Roberts: “The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in . . . ‘legal fiction’ . . . the putative right to abortion is a creation that should be undone.”

Despite his objection and the widespread panic of media outlets since Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined the court, it’s now difficult to see a Roberts-led Court ever overturning Roe.

Like Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, and the Korematsu decisions, Roe gives constitutional sanction to great evil, and neither slavery, forced sterilization, nor the internment of U.S. citizens were ever overturned by the Court. Dred Scott was overturned by the Civil War and the 13th Amendment. Buck v. Bell and Korematsu are still “the law of the land.” So is Roe.

Ultimately, June Medical Services v. Russo is not about abortion access in Louisiana. It’s about the nearly unique and untouchable status of legal abortion in our country.

Every Constitutional right, even legitimate ones such as the freedom of speech or religion, is subject to limitations. Any restriction on abortion, however, is considered a mortal threat to “women’s rights,” cast as part of a “war on women,” and considered a violation of so-called “settled law.” On Monday, the Chief Justice added the sheen of “fidelity to precedent.”

And so, once again, Christians are left to ending this national evil by directly acting. Any hope that the Court would help us defend the vulnerable unborn was misplaced, but our commitment to defend the vulnerable unborn was not. Our only option is to stay at our posts, to love mothers and fathers and newborns, and to offer the reasons, the compassion, and the support that will, with God’s help, make abortion unthinkable.

Recreational marijuana is legal in eleven states, and another twenty-one states permit the use of so-called “medical marijuana.” I say “so-called” because, as NYU drug policy expert Mark Kleinman has put it, “the vast majority of ‘patients’ buying ‘medical marijuana’ aren’t doing so under any sort of active medical supervision . . . Many of them aren’t ‘treating’ anything but their desire to get high . . .”

In the push to legalize, America has been sold dangerous lies about marijuana: of financial windfalls with no accompanying social cost and of therapeutic benefits with no accompanying dangers. But marijuana is dangerous. In fact, for some, it’s potentially lethal.

Dr. Erik Messamore, a psychiatrist with a doctorate in psychopharmacology, recently brought attention to a study published by a branch of NIH about my state, which is ground zero of the marijuana push in the United States. The title of the study telegraphs the punchline: “Legalized Cannabis in Colorado Emergency Departments: A Cautionary Review of Negative Health and Safety Effects.”

This “cautionary review” begins rather bluntly: “Cannabis legalization has led to significant health consequences, particularly to patients in emergency departments and hospitals in Colorado.” The consequences that are, in their words, “most concerning” are “psychosis, suicide, and other substance abuse,” not to mention the impairment of a user’s “complex decision making,” which may be irreversible, even by subsequent abstinence.

In Colorado, cannabis-related emergency and urgent-care visits among “teenagers and young adults” increased nearly three-fold after legalization. Most of these visits required “behavioral health evaluation.”

To quote the G.I. Joe public service announcements of my youth, “Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.” Except, and this should disturb us all, the link between cannabis use and mental illness was already well-known before legalization. In his book, No One Cares About Crazy People, Ron Powers (who co-wrote the World War II history Flags of Our Fathers) told the story of his two sons, both diagnosed with schizophrenia in their early twenties. Marijuana use, Powers learned, contributed to their diagnosis. Specifically, marijuana use increases the chances of schizophrenia for people

who carry the genes AKT1 and COMT, which “affect brain chemistry.” Powers’ sons had these genes. One of them committed suicide, and the other attempted suicide but was saved through a timely intervention.

Again, all of this was known in 2014 when Colorado eagerly legalized cannabis. It’s still known as legal weed marches across the rest of the country.

By the way, do you know what is also known? The claim that you can somehow limit marijuana use to adults who are just looking to relax or get high, and keep it away from kids and schools, is, well, excrement. Even before legalization, teenagers had no problem getting marijuana. Are we supposed to believe that legalization has made it more difficult?

And, how are we supposed to keep those with the triggering genes from using? Unless there’s a known family history of schizophrenia, chances are the first time someone knows they have AKT1 or COMT is after they land in the psych ward.

Despite what we know about the effects of marijuana use on teenage brains and the genetic-related danger to some, we are committed to playing Russian Roulette with young lives. And media outlets loudly proclaim legalization as “inevitable” and part of our expanding “freedom,” even while stories about the hazards go underreported.

By the way, this “cautionary review” was published a year ago. I only heard about it recently. It clearly escaped the attention of just about everyone, including those tasked with knowing.

Given all the talk of listening to scientists and experts about COVID-19, climate change, and all kinds of other subjects, why are we ignoring the clear data on this? If there are links (and there are) between cannabis, psychosis, and suicide, especially with teenagers and young adults, there should be no more discussion. Wanting to get high is no excuse for allowing others to be hurt.

We've all encountered the term "Artificial Intelligence" in science fiction movies and books, but what does  it mean, exactly? And what does it mean for our world? What is a Christian worldview perspective on Artificial Intelligence.

Today on the BreakPoint Podcast, Shane Morris welcomes Jason Thacker, an associate research fellow at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and author of The Age of AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity.

The Age of AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity by Jason Thacker

Please consider making a donation to BreakPoint and the Colson Center to help us meet our June 30 fiscal-year-end goal. Thank you!

John Stonestreet and Shane Morris discuss the events of the week from a Christian worldview perspective. Combine outrage with historical ignorance and a lack of context, and you start witnessing mobs tearing down statues--even statues of those who fought slavery and injustice, like Abraham Lincoln and U. S. Grant. John and Shane discuss the implications for nation

They start the broadcast, however, with more thoughts on the seismic shift in religious freedom brought about by the disastrous Supreme Court decision in Bostock. Yes, protections remain for religious institutions, but religious individuals have been thrown under the bus.

Also today, Idaho has passed a law to protect female athletes at public schools and colleges from competing against biological males identifying as female; the insanity of the transgender movement; listeners' questions answered on Bostock and on assisted suicide; and a clip from Shane Morris's BreakPoint Podcast interview with Pastor Randy Smith, host of the "America's Parks" YouTube channel.

“The anti-statue movement has taken a turn into absurdity,” by Henry Olsen, Washington Post

End of Life Care, a Colson Center Short Course session with Dr. Ben Mitchell

“Equal opportunity for thee, not me,” by Mary Jackson, WORLD Magazine

“The Glory of God’s Creation–And America’s National Parks,” BreakPoint Podcast

Calamity has an awful way of exposing our vulnerabilities. Picture a tornado, sweeping across the midwestern plains, sucking everything in its path right into the whirlwind. It’s the lighter things, the not-nailed-down things, that go first. When the wind, the dust and the debris finally settle, we learn which things were most vulnerable.

COVID-19 has also exposed much about who’s most vulnerable in our world. By far, the elderly have received the worst of it. The CDC estimates 80 percent of COVID-related deaths in the U.S. have been people 65 and older, and a staggering 40 percent of all U.S. deaths have occurred inside long-term care facilities, like nursing homes. 

Because of the increased risk, many of these facilities have endured much harsher shutdowns than the rest of society. Even now, as many of us return to work and church, many people in long-term care facilities are stuck inside, some confined to their own personal rooms. No family. No visitors.

Other data coming to light now shows how COVID-19 affected people with intellectual disabilities. One study by NPR found that people with disabilities living in institutions are somewhere between two and two-and-a-half times more likely to die from the Coronavirus than the general population. 

This is because, as one sociologist told NPR, those with disability have higher rates of underlying health problems and also tend to live in close quarters with others, which makes disease transmission much harder to stop. In other words, the COVID-19 tornado picked up the elderly and those with intellectual disability first.

In the early days of the shutdowns, a few people, out of economic anxiety, suggested that efforts to stem the spread of Coronavirus weren’t worth the hassle if the virus only endangered the old or the disabled. It was a shocking thing to hear at the time, but not unexpected given the advance of legal assisted suicide and abortions targeted at babies with disability.

Such policies betray the already deep de-valuing of the elderly and those with disability. It ought not surprise us to encounter the same kind of cultural apathy to their lives when it comes to stopping the spread of a disease that inconveniences the rest of us.

Beyond the virus itself, the elderly and those with disability uniquely feel the negative consequences of the shutdowns as well. The isolation felt everywhere, that may be proving as deadly as the disease, are acutely felt inside long-term care facilities. I recently read a heartbreaking personal account on Twitter, of a grandmother who lives in a nursing home and, at the beginning of the crisis, seemed to be doing well. Though the virus has not infected anyone at her facility, last week she failed a “depression test” meant to diagnose her emotional health. She gave no answer, said the post, to the question of whether she believed she’d be better off dead.

Nursing homes and long-term care facilities can be an incredible blessing. In fact, they’re a legacy of how Christ and His Church has taught the world to value all life. Sociologist and researcher Alvin J. Schmidt, in his 2001 book How Christianity Changed the World, points out that while other cultures showed some reverence for older generations, it was largely followers of Jesus who gave the world the idea of not just revering the old, but actively caring for them. We have a similar legacy when it comes to those with disabilities, who were so often treated horrifically in the ancient and modern world.

But these facilities cannot stand in for the personal care and attention we owe our elderly loved ones and neighbors. Too often, those in long-term homes are “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” for the rest us.

Though we may not be able to visit right now, we can still serve these neighbors in creative ways. Churches can adopt nearby homes and commit to writing letters to tenants. We can donate food for the elderly and the staff who care for them. We can call. When circumstances permit again, we can visit through windows or in outdoor spaces.

And we can pray for these our brothers and sisters who are suffering not just from COVID-19, but from isolation. When doors reopen, let’s flood these facilities with visitors, in Jesus’ name.

In terms of lives lost, families separated, people imprisoned, and churches shut down, the 21st century has, so far, been the worst period of persecution against Christians in recorded history. Among the hottest of persecution hot-spots is Nigeria. According to religious freedom watchdog Open Doors USA, Nigeria ranks at #12 worldwide for persecution of Christians.

Islamic terrorist organization Boko Haram is the known villain in Nigeria, and justifiably so. They are among the most brutal Islamist radical terror groups in the world. Just last week, attacks in northeastern Nigeria by a Boko Haram splinter-group left dozens of soldiers and civilians dead. Back in January, the group beheaded Nigerian pastor Lawan Andimi. Kidnapped from his village and forced to negotiate for his release with the government, Andimi wouldn’t break. Instead, he turned his hostage video into a stunning testimony to Christ.

Still, as bad as Boko Haram is, much of the recent bloodshed in Nigeria has been perpetrated by militant Hausa-Fulani herdsmen. This largely Muslim ethnic group specializes in night raids on Christian villages in Nigeria’s Middle Belt.  In a statement last June, Nigerian Christian leaders claimed that “over 6,000 persons—mostly children, women and the aged—[have been] maimed and killed in night raids by armed Fulani herdsmen.” They also described the “continuous abduction of under-aged Christian girls by Muslim youths” for forced marriages.

According to Open Doors, these attacks are essentially “religious cleansing,” attempts “to eradicate Christianity” from the region. According to Nigerian Christians the more appropriate word is genocide.

The term fits. As I pointed out in March, genocide has been carefully defined by the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, and the word should not be tossed around carelessly. Genocide is action intended to destroy in whole or in part “a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

Clearly, genocide is what Boko Haram and the Fulani herdsman are after in Nigeria. Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari, however, denies this. In a recently issued statement, he insisted that “false allegations of persecution of Christians” are “a most misleading campaign.” President Buhari, by the way, is the son of a Fulani chief.

Thankfully, there are international voices taking the plight of Nigerian Christians seriously. The U.K. Parliament released a report putting the G-word front and center. Entitled, “Nigeria: Unfolding Genocide?” the report issues a stirring call to Britain and the world “to speak out on behalf of all the survivors and victims of violence,” and “to highlight the seriousness of the situation and the level of injustice that Nigerian Christians face.”

Describing the report in Forbes (and by the way, good for Forbes for covering this story), one human rights activist called for “comprehensive investigations and prosecutions” by bodies like the International Criminal Court. But, she insisted, the first step has to be that the world admits “the nature and severity of the atrocities. The crimes must be recognized for what they are and ‘a most misleading campaign’ is not that name.”

The U.S. must lead the way. Earlier this month, an executive order by President Trump made religious freedom a foreign policy and national security priority. It’s now time to make act on those words. Nigerian Christians can’t afford to wait.

Besides calling this crisis what it is, a genocide, the U.S. could ease the process for asylum-seekers and immigrants from Nigeria. Nigeria was among the six countries President Trump added to the travel and immigration ban in February and, currently, Nigerian refugees hoping to flee to the United States must prove their need by submitting an exhaustive stack of paperwork. Those in danger should not have to go to so much trouble to demonstrate what the world should already know.

Please, consider supporting Open Doors and other organizations that raise awareness, advocate for, and offer support for the persecuted. Even so, as important as political and financial assistance are, Christians in Nigeria need one thing from us above anything else: our prayers.

According to a Wall Street Journal report last week, there are “signs suggesting damage from the crisis is starting to ease.” For example, though consumer spending fell a record 13.6 percent in April, personal income increased, and preliminary reports indicate a strong rise in consumer spending for May. Some department stores, such as Macy’s, are saying that their re-opened stores “are performing better than anticipated.”

This is welcome news for a year in which a health crisis birthed a financial crisis, complete with lost jobs, closed businesses, market craziness, even-more-eye-popping national debt, and a resurgence of socialist ideas. Still, if a flurry of “coronavirus bankruptcies” is on the way, as some suggest, “uncertain” is the only word to describe our economy’s future. 

For example, it’s not clear whether people spending money again is a sign of improved economic stability, or that people are using stimulus checks to distract from the chaos and brokenness all around them, not to mention the loneliness they feel. After all, binge buying is, more often than not in our culture, an attempt to fill the God-shaped hole in our hearts with stuff, to console ourselves from the craziness of realizing this world is definitely not under our control.

Social unrest must factor in, as well. Radical advocates of socialism and economic restructuring are always ready to hijack the causes of others, and the protests in the wake of the killing of George Floyd are no exception. Take, for example, CHAZ or CHOP in Seattle or groups such as The Movement for Black Lives, which openly campaign for “collective ownership,” and explicitly claim to be “anti-capitalist.”

And, all of this is being done in the context of lousy civic and economic education. A recent Gallup survey shows that pretty much half of millennials favor socialism over capitalism, as if the 20th century, didn’t happen. You know what they say, those who forget history are… 

Given the economic turmoil, social unrest, and growing misunderstanding of how economies function, what better time could there be to ensure your kids and grandkids understand the fundamentals of money and stewardship from a Biblical worldview, what money is for, how it can be properly used to bless others and advance the kingdom?

The next Colson Center short course, which will begin July 7 and run for four consecutive Tuesday nights, is called: “A Christian View of Money: God’s Economy vs. the World’s.” If you’ve never really thought about how God thinks about stewardship and financial resources, how He created human economies to function and how the fall frustrates that design, this course will be very helpful. And if it’s past time to have “the talk” with your children, the one about money, saving, and giving, why not take this course together with them?

In week one, Dan Lewis, Executive Director of the River Foundation and has taught classes for years at the high school, college and seminary levels about God’s view of money, will teach on the theme of giving. Everything is the Lord’s. All we have, He’s given to us. When we give of what He has given, we participate in His work.

Ron Blue, Founder of Kingdom Advisors and the Ron Blue Institute will teach during week two about the theme of “Save.” For a nation in incredible debt, and given the average consumer debt of Americans, there’s hardly a more counter-cultural idea than having financial discipline now to create our own storehouse for living and giving beyond our earning years.

In week three of the “Christian View of Money” course, Brandon Sieben, President and CEO of Compass and Ken Battles, Executive Director of Compass Urban Stewardship Ministries will teach on how we might best differentiate between our wants and our needs.

The course will wrap up with long-time friend of the Colson Center, Dr. Jay Richards who will teach about the most common myths about economics and money, many of which have taken younger generations captive. For example, “Capitalism is based on greed and over-consumption” or “if someone becomes rich that automatically means someone else will become poor.” This will be especially crucial content for young people right now.

All sessions are recorded, in case you have to miss any one of them live. Come to BreakPoint.org to sign up. Our last several courses have sold out, so don’t wait. Again, come to BreakPoint.org

When's the last time you and your family have experienced the beauty and majesty of God's creation together? Today on the BreakPoint Podcast, Shane Morris welcomes Pastor Randy Smith, host of the immensely popular YouTube Channnel "America's Parks."

Pastor Smith discusses how he came to fall in love with America's national parks and how experiencing creation together has helped to shape his family's faith life and provided his children with memories for a lifetime.

“America’s Parks” with Pastor Randy Smith, YouTube

Please consider helping BreakPoint and the Colson Center meet our fiscal-year end financial goals. Thank you!

For years, I’ve worried and warned about the dangers posed by gene-editing technologies, such as CRISPR. In the words of one of its inventors, CRISPR makes the human genome “as malleable as a piece of literary prose at the mercy of an editor’s red pen.” At least, that’s the promise that has yet to materialize.

In 2018, a Chinese scientist announced he’d used CRISPR to genetically modify human embryos. At the time, more “respectable” scientists denounced his actions as “unethical,” given how new the technology was and how little ethical oversight there was for using it. In essence, this dangerous technology has been released into the world with no limitations except “play nice.”

Nearly all of the criticism directed at Dr. He’ had to do with secondary issues such as informed consent. Relatively little was said about the possibility of gene edits producing mutations that might produce cancer or other illnesses. Essentially nothing was said about the ethical nature of the technology itself, whether or not editing genes is something we should do at all.

Why was the ethical outrage so shallow? Two reasons, I suppose. First, science advances today on a philosophical mandate that is barely contained by an ethical utilitarianism.  That’s a big-worded way of saying that our worship of science comes with the idea that “if we can do it, we should do it” and the only thing that limits that is if someone gets hurt. Case in point: The Guardian called CRISPR, not a bad idea or a dangerous technology, but “an imperfect tool.” Why? Because “it could lead to ‘off-target’ edits.”

That squishy bit of ethical reasoning leads to the second reason I thought that the outrage directed at the Chinese scientist was, as I put it at the time, “faux.” I believed that other scientists, including those who decried Dr. He as being “rogue,” were doing the same thing, just more discretely. In other words, I did not believe that the loud denunciation and even imprisonment of one Chinese scientist would stop others just as intent on playing God.

Turns out, it didn’t.

Apparently, a team of researchers at the Francis Crick Institute in London used CRISPR to edit 18 donated human embryos. The purpose, they claimed, was to study “the role of a particular gene in the earliest stages of human development.”  Unfortunately, around half of the embryos “contained major unintended edits.”

“Major unintended edits” is a euphemism for “mutation” and “genetic damage” which, as Medium told its readers, “could lead to birth defects or medical problems like cancer later in life.” As one genetics researcher put it this way, “…you’re affecting so much of the DNA around the gene you’re trying to edit that you could be inadvertently affecting other genes and causing problems.” Even worse, the Frick Institute team didn’t inadvertently mess with a gene near the one they were targeting. In other words, they “hit their targets.” The results were, however, unexpected.

Fyodor Urnov, a professor of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, was more blunt: “There’s no sugarcoating this . . . This is a restraining order for all genome editors to stay the living daylights away from embryo editing.”

Once a “gene-editing expert” gets frightened, you’d think we might want to cool our jets in this whole “playing god” thing. I doubt it. Scientists will ignore any “restraining order” that lacks legal punch. What happened in China didn’t deter researchers in London. What happened in London won’t deter anyone else. By the way, all the embryos affected by the Francis Crick Institute team were destroyed.

When science operates independently of religion, philosophy, law, and public policy, then researchers (to paraphrase a line from Jurassic Park) become so preoccupied with whether or not they can do something, they never stop to think if they should.

So we, working through our elected leaders, must be the one to tell scientists “no.” They may whine and moan, as they did when President Bush curtailed embryonic stem cell research, but so what? As it turned out, we didn’t need to kill embryos for their stem cells. Likewise, we don’t need to play God with the human genome or with unborn children either.

It takes a phrase like “seismic shift” to describe how much the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges altered the political and cultural landscape. Not only did it redefine marriage across cultural sectors and an entire nation, it had a huge impact on religious freedom. In an instant, those who held traditional beliefs about marriage became social pariahs.

If the Obergefell earthquake was the legal and cultural equivalent of magnitude 7, last week’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision may be magnitude 9. If you’re like me and had to look up how earthquakes are measured, that’s about twenty times as powerful.

Before Bostock, only a minority of states prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In most states, bakers, florists, and other business owners were largely safe from lawsuits and penalties currently faced by people like Jack Phillips and Baronelle Stutzman.

Last week’s decision probably changed that. Not only did Bostock effectively re-write the Civil Rights Act in the area of employment, it’s now difficult to imagine a federal court not also applying its logic to areas such as housing and education.

While the Bostock case specifically dealt with Title VII, the next domino will likely be Title IX, which prohibits sexual discrimination in education. As Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation pointed out, Bostock “would either require the elimination of all sex-specific programs and facilities or allow access based on an individual’s subjective identity rather than his or her objective biology.”

To do otherwise would be to violate Justice Gorsuch’s absurd conclusion that any differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity requires discrimination based on sex.

Of course, a test case would have to be litigated first, which means there’s still time for Congress, who should’ve done this in the first place, to (quoting Anderson again) “clarify that when it uses the word ‘sex’ in civil rights statutes it does not refer to sexual orientation and gender identity.” And, Congress still has time to clarify that educational institutions offering single-sex facilities and sports programs “on the basis of biology” aren’t discriminating. Its common sense, and it’s especially good for women.

Of course, Congress had ample time to act before the Bostock case but failed to do it. Whether this was a failure of conviction or a failure of moral courage isn’t clear. Either way, the result is the same.

Of course, in his Bostock opinion, Gorsuch did claim to be “deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution.” Unfortunately, that’s a nice but meaningless sentiment given the erosion of religious freedom since Obergefell and his rewriting of the Civil Rights act last week.

Some, such as David French, have pointed to potential safeguards for religious freedom, such as the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and even “provisions in Title VII itself [which] provide limited religious liberty protections.” There are also a series of cases on the court’s docket that could, as French suggests, dramatically increase “the number of employees at colleges, schools, and other religious institutions who are left outside the scope of Title VII.” And there’s still the possibility the Court would balance Bostock by overturning state and local laws that require religious nonprofits such as foster care and adoption agencies to violate their religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, even if every one of those things happens, which is far from certain, only religious institutions would likely be protected, and great harm would still be done to the concept of religious freedom in at least three ways. First, business owners and employers with religious convictions, people like Jack Phillips, would be robbed of much of their 1st Amendment rights. The religious freedom they, too, should enjoy would be neutered down to a privatized freedom of worship.

Second, the government would have to decide which organizations or institutions are religious and which are not. If we learned anything from the HHS mandate debacle, when institutions that served the public or were too large were not considered religious, it’s that we don’t want that.

Finally, by siding with the gay and transgender plaintiffs, the Court majority has already put millennia-old objections to same-sex relationships and gender subjectivity into the same category as antisemitism and racism: a kind of bigotry ostracized from cultural influence.

So, yes, the ground beneath our feet has shifted. Fortunately, there’s a Psalm for that: “Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change, though the mountains shake in the heart of the sea; though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble with its tumult.”

Selah, indeed.