This podcast examines a recent experience I had advocating for South Dakota HB 1212 which would have added clergy to the list of mandatory reporters of suspected cases of child neglect and abuse. 45 states already mandate that clergy report suspected cases. Reporting suspected abuse does not mean that anyone gets in trouble. It just means that a qualified professional checks in on the child's welfare. Teachers, counselors, healthcare providers, social welfare workers and many other professions are already mandatory reporters. The Board of Ordained Ministries of the Dakota's Conference of the United Methodist Church says, "House Bill 1212 not only aids in offering protections for our most vulnerable members of society but also frees our clergy to be better disciple-makers who model the teachings of Jesus and speak up on behalf of children."  You would think it would be a no-brainer, right?  Enter Norman Woods of the Family Heritage Alliance - a conservative organization that "seeks to defend the values that you cherish" - namely the protection of family, faith and freedom. Norm testified against the bill claiming it was an impingement on first amendment protection of the free exercise of religion. Legislators there clearly know Norman and respect his opinion. The bill passed out of the Judiciary committee on a 9/3 vote and was voted down in the House of Representatives on a 30/35 vote. I believe if the FHA hadn't opposed it, it would have passed.  I argue in this podcast that the biblical support provided on the FHA website for their work in protecting religious liberties completely misses the point of the two passages on which it is based (1 Peter 2:11-14 and Romans 13:1-3). It is a great example of reading what you want to see into the Bible and ignoring what it actually says. Secondly, the FHA didn't provide any explanation on what exactly makes HB 1212 a 1st amendment curtailment. Norman simply said it was. But there is a very clear argument otherwise (provided in the podcast). Furthermore, as far as we can tell, there has not been a single 1st amendment challenge brought against any of the 45 states where clergy are mandatory reporters. Not a single one. If we were truly dealing with a curtailment of the free exercise of religion, someone would have noticed and brought a challenge. But this is not the case.  There is absolutely no good reason to say that HB 1212 threatened 1st amendment religious freedoms. I think it is clear that children are now less safe, less protected, their welfare less prioritized because of this political influence. It is hard to prioritize the welfare of children. It so often gets ignored because people don't want to disturb their church with information about sexual abuse that may occur. So it gets swept under the carpet with the claim, "The state has no business telling the church what to do." As I say in the podcast, the state cannot tell a preacher how to interpret the Bible, but it sure can tell him how fast he can drive on his way to Bible study.  In the judiciary hearing, one wise representative asked an opponent of HB 1212, "Can you explain to me exactly how the practice of your faith would change if HB 1212 were passed?" That is the question and the failure to answer proved the point! Churches should place greater important on the protection of children than upon the protection of 1st amendment privilege. The FHA folks are good well-intentioned godly people. They are also unable to see how their fierce attention of protection of religious liberty is blinding them to a deeper calling. So South Dakota continues on its path of prioritizing the needs of adults over those of children in voting down of HB 1212. And it is a curious situation when the misapplication of the 1st amendment supersedes Jesus clear command that we "suffer the little children to come"