|
|
|
|
|
Religious News & Views 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
Religious News & Views 2006 |
|
|
Religious Persecution in America
|
An Historic Example Of Judicial Activism: The Cantwell Case Religious News & Views from 2007 Religious News & Views from 2006 Religious News & Views -- 2006 Click headline for full story December 2006 Smithsonian Slams Door on Intelligent Design
12-20-06 -- Government report finds museum harassed scientist for publishing article on suggesting life is not the result of random chance. . . . How far will some scientists go to keep the idea of intelligent design (ID) from seeing the light of day? Consider the case of a Smithsonian Institution scientist who has been harassed by museum officials for two years for publishing an article supporting ID. . . . Ironically enough, Dr. Richard Sternberg is not even a proponent of the theory that life sprang from something other than random chance -- yet he has been demoted and his reputation smeared. . . .His crime? As managing editor of a biology journal, he published an article by Dr. Steven Meyer supporting ID. Sternberg’s colleagues didn’t like it. . . .“What I should have done, according to my detractors,” Sternberg said, “was I should have paid attention to who the author was, what he stands for, realize that he is a Christian and place the article in the wastepaper basket.” ACLU's 'Search And Destroy' Agenda
12-8-06 -- Search and Destroy (S&D) missions involve sending out a group of soldiers from a base camp to seek out and destroy the enemy. Often under the cover of darkness a squad or platoon is sent out to set up an ambush for any unsuspecting enemy that might come along. These soldiers conceal themselves and wait to spring the ambush if the enemy wanders into the trap. In a similar way the Bible gives an illustration of Satan laying in wait to ambush Christians. Paul says, “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.” . . . In that same vane, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is the ‘Devourer of Religion.’ The vast majority of Americans view the ACLU’s hit-squad as God-haters that desire to destroy all vestiges of religion in the public square, and all Judeo-Christian values and beliefs. Why? Because religion gets in the way of their secular-progressive agenda. ACLU lawyers have done more to attack Christianity than any other organization in America today. . . . All of this is done under the guise of the alleged ‘wall of separation between church and state.’ This often used phrase is normally attributed to the Constitution. In actuality it came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in response to the Danbury Baptist’s concern over a rumor they had heard that the American government was going to set up a national church, much like the Anglican Church in England. In the letter, Jefferson explained to the clergymen that the Founding Fathers had set up a wall of separation between church and state to prevent that from happening in America. . . . “Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush: . . . ‘[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.’ . . . “Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.” Federal Judge Says San Francisco's Labeling of Catholics as "Hateful" is Constitutional Urges Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities to defy Church directives on adoptions by homosexuals
Mt. Soledad cross vote reaffirmed by justices Land transfer upheld in appellate decision
12-1-06 -- An appeals court ruling yesterday that upheld a voter-approved measure to transfer land under the Mount Soledad cross to the federal government boosted the hopes of cross supporters but is far from the final word in the emotionally charged legal battle. . . . The 3-0 decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal overturned a lower court order that invalidated San Diego city voters' approval of Proposition A in July 2005. . . . The appellate justices gave cross supporters one of the few victories they have seen in the legal fight, which has spanned nearly two decades and has been considered by the highest courts in the nation. . . . Yesterday's decision, however, affected only one aspect of the ongoing battle. Two lawsuits challenging a second land transfer to the federal government this summer and the cross's presence on public land are in early stages in federal court. . . . Also, the lawyer for the war veteran and atheist who challenged Proposition A, the land-transfer ballot measure that was overwhelmingly approved last year, said he will ask the state Supreme Court to review the appellate court decision. November 2006
Dixie courthouse unveils the Ten Commandments
11/29/06 -- Dozens of county residents took a few extra minutes on the way home from church Sunday or on the way to work Monday morning to drive past the Dixie County courthouse to see for themselves if what they had heard was true. . . . It was. . . . A six-ton block of granite bearing the Ten Commandments had been installed atop the courthouse steps. Inscribed at the base was the admonition to "Love God and keep his commandments." . . . "There are no negatives there to live by," said Skipper Jones, former owner and publisher of the county's weekly newspaper. Jones served as spokesman Monday for Joe Anderson Jr., one of the leaders of the effort to have the monument constructed and situated at no cost to the county. . . . "Mr. Anderson was involved with others and took a very active role in seeing this was accomplished because he feels this is something the country needs to get back to," Jones said. . . . The concept of a Ten Commandments monument was endorsed by county commissioners, according to the minutes of the Jan. 19 regular board meeting. . . . Former Commissioner John Driggers broached the subject on behalf of an unnamed county resident, asking whether the board was "bold enough" to allow the monument to be placed at the courthouse. After then-county attorney Joey Lander told the board he would defend any lawsuits stemming from the decision for free, commissioners voted in favor of allowing the project to proceed. . . . Although Lander has resigned as county attorney, he told The Sun on Monday afternoon that he would uphold his offer.
Christians blast Chicago for 'Nativity' movie ban 11-28-06 -- The so-called war on Christmas has been reignited with an ironic decision by the city of Chicago to ban advertisements for "The Nativity Story" movie from a local Christmas festival, fearing they might offend non-Christians. . . . "This is one of the most blatant forms of religious discrimination imaginable," said Jay Sekulow, a Christian who is chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. "To suggest that a movie about the birth of Jesus Christ should not be included in a Christmas festival is absurd. This transcends political correctness and centers squarely on religious bigotry." . . . New Line Cinema had planned to play a loop of its film on TV monitors at the event, but the decision by government leaders has many shaking their heads. . . . Dr. Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission and known for his MovieGuide recommendations, told WND the city's ban on the ads is "abhorrent" and he labeled Chicago officials as "corrupt." . . . "I'm absolutely shocked that at a Christmas festival, they would not allow commercials they could see tonight on TV," he said. "It is just more political correctness where everything is OK – except Christianity." 2,000 names on petition seek restoration of cross
William & Mary officials had removed it 'to make chapel more
welcoming' 11-17-06 -- A student-organized petition has been presented to the Board of Visitors at William & Mary College, seeking the restoration to the historic Wren Chapel of a two-foot-tall bronze altar cross that had been present for decades. . . . It had been removed recently on the order of school managers to make the chapel "more welcoming" to visitors, but students and alumni are protesting. .. . The petition at the start of the day had about 1,400 signatures, but by the end of the day the count was nearly 2,100 calling on the school's governing board to return the cross, according to a current count on the website for the SaveTheWrenCross.org campaign.
The petition is addressed to College President Gene Nichol, who in October ordered a small, century-old cross to be removed from the Chapel, a 274-year-old facility used for both religious and secular events on campus. . . . "We, the undersigned students and alumni of the College, and concerned citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, disagree with your order to remove the Wren Cross from display on the Wren Chapel altar," the petition says.
By Process of Intimidation
11-17-06 -- The town of Bridgeport, W.Va. (pop. 7,300), recently became the site of the latest skirmish in the culture wars. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the West Virginia chapter of the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two plaintiffs against the county board of education and other local officials. The suit alleged that Bridgeport High School violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by hanging a copy of Warner Sallman’s famous portrait, “Head of Christ,” on a wall outside the principal’s office. . . . The two sides recently settled the case: The school has agreed not to display the portrait but may use textbooks and other curriculum-related materials that reproduce it. Although such a settlement sounds amicable and fair, the case itself remains troubling and illustrates some of the tactics used to push religion out of the public square. . . . One fact that made the claim of church-state violation so odd in this case was the time-line: The disputed portrait had been hanging in the school for a long time. In 1969, a retiring guidance counselor, who had the portrait in his office, gave it as a farewell gift to the school’s principal (now also retired), who decided to hang it outside his office. Thus students, parents, teachers, employees and visitors to Bridgeport High School apparently suffered from this violation of the First Amendment for 37 years.
Pennsylvania photo altered to fog Ten Commandments 11-16-06 -- The politically correct version of American history has Apollo 8 astronauts reading from "an ancient religious text" and a photo editor busy making alterations to reality for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to WND readers. . . . There was considerable outrage expressed – but little surprise – from WND's series of articles this week on efforts to edit America's history to eliminate references to Christianity, and Christians. . . . The series detailed how guides at the U.S. Supreme Court say the frieze representation of a stone tablet represents the Ten Amendments, instead of the Ten Commandments, and how guides at Jamestown say the settlement was founded for business interests, and how Monticello guides announce that Thomas Jefferson was a strict deist who dedicated his life to keeping the separation of church and state.
Christianity being wiped from tales of U.S. history Editor's note: Yesterday, the Supreme Court's effort to erase the Ten Commandments from its history was documented. Today we find out where else Christianity's influence is being wiped from historical stories:
When Pastor Todd DuBord visited historical sites in the Washington, D.C., area recently he was thrilled with being on the site of so many events important to the founding of the United States. . . . He, and his wife, Tracy, were on a tour that visited Jamestown, Monticello, Mt. Vernon, Ford's Theater, the Pentagon, Capitol Hill, the U.S. Supreme Court Building, the Holocaust Museum, Korean War Memorial, World War II Memorial Vietnam Memorial, Washington Memorial, Jefferson Memorial and Lincoln Memorial. . . . But as a history buff, he noticed quickly that one influence from the nation's early years was left out – not just once or twice – but repeatedly. . . . DuBord, pastor of the Lake Almanor Community Church in California, said when visiting the Jamestown Museum and Settlement, and Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, he noticed any of Christianity's influences on American history were ignored, or belittled. . . . His entire research compilation is available online. And he's written letters to the various organizations that manage the sites, asking them to correct the information they provide to visitors. . . . During his visit at Jamestown, he said, the tour guides several times said the first settlers arrived in America "to make money."
Ten Commandments stunner: Feds lying at Supreme Court
Every argument before the U.S. Supreme Court and every opinion the justices deliver comes in the presence of the Ten Commandments, God's law given to Moses on a fire-scorched mountain, and now represented for the United States in the very artwork embedded in the high court structure. . . . In today's world of revisionist history, the proof comes through the work of a California pastor who visited the Supreme Court building recently when he was in Washington and was surprised that what the tour guides were telling him wasn't the same thing as what he was seeing. . . . Todd DuBord, pastor of the Lake Almanor Community Church in California, said he was traveling with his wife, Tracy, and was more than startled during recent visits to the courthouse and two other historic locations to discover the stories of the nation's heritage had been sterilized of Christian references. . . . His entire research compilation is available online. . . . "Having done some research (before the trip), I absolutely was not expecting to hear those remarks," which, he told WND, simply "denied history." Christian Student Challenges Missouri State Over Free Speech
11-06-06 -- She says a professor coerced her to write a letter in support of gay adoption. . . . Missouri State University is in court after punishing a Christian student who refused to write a letter to the state Legislature in support of gay adoption. . . . Emily Brooker says she refused the project because she opposes gay adoption, but her professor ignored her objections and wrote her up. . . . David French, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund who is representing Brooker, said her First Amendment rights were egregiously violated. . . . “She was brought up on charges for among other things an insufficient commitment to diversity," he told Family News in Focus. “She was then punished by the university in a Star-Chamber type proceeding, where her professors asked her if she thought they were sinners, if she thought gays and lesbians were sinners.” October 2006
Rutherford Institute Attorneys Clarify Right to Religious Expression
During Holiday Season 10-18-06 -- In response to a growing tendency among public schools, government officials and even private businesses to ban references to Christmas or Christianity during the holiday season, The Rutherford Institute is making available guidelines regarding what can and cannot be done to celebrate the holidays. The Twelve Rules of Christmas™ are available here. Individuals with legal questions or in need of legal assistance should call (434) 978-3888 or email staff@rutherford.org. . . . “Whether through ignorance or fear, Americans are painfully misguided about the recognition of religious holidays,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “For example, every year we hear many complaints from parents about school officials banning any reference to the word ‘Christmas.’ There is an irrational bias against anything remotely religious unless it’s sanitized and secularized, and unfortunately far too many parents, students and teachers erroneously believe they cannot do anything to celebrate Christmas in the public schools.”
Appeals court revisits Mt. Soledad land transfer 10-18-06 -- A San Diego appeals court panel appeared deeply troubled yesterday over a lower-court ruling that threw out a voter-approved 2005 initiative transferring the land under the Mount Soledad cross to the federal government. . . . During an often-lively two hours of oral arguments – an unusually long time allotment – the justices of the 4th District Court of Appeals fixed their attention largely on the legality of the transfer, and not the larger constitutional issues about a cross on public land. . . . The three-justice panel also focused on the fact that 76 percent of city voters approved Proposition A, which asked if the land should be handed over to the federal government. . . . At various times Justices Patricia Benke and Richard Huffman wondered aloud if the courts could possibly conclude that the intent of the voters was to act unconstitutionally when they approved the transfer. MICHIGAN Attorney Sees Pro-Islam Bias in Religious Indoctrination Case Rulings (AgapePress) - 10-18-06 -- A spokesman for a Michigan-based law center that defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians says a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an Islamic indoctrination case indicates that Islam is "in" and Christianity is "out.". . . The Thomas More Law Center represented the parents of the California seventh-graders who were subjected to an intensive, three-week indoctrination in Islam at school. The students were forced to become Muslims, in effect, and were not allowed to say anything critical about the religion. . . . The original trial court and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the indoctrination as constitutional. And now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal, the Ninth Circuit's ruling will stand. . . . Edward L. White III, trial counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, says the Byron Union School District in Contra Costa County, California, simply went too far with this school assignment. "The parents in this case objected to it," he explains, "not because Islam was being taught in the school, but because the school had crossed the line and started to teach the religion." September 2006 Welcome to the criminalization of Christianity By Janet L. Folger 9-13-06 -- As I sat in the hearing room, I felt a cold chill – like the chilling effect this court-martial will have on our free speech. For this analogy to be accurate, however, I would need to be sitting in a freezer. At issue in the court-martial of Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, chaplain for the United States Navy, is a name and the freedom to speak it. That name is Jesus. And, according to this week's ruling, the freedom to speak it depends on the context. . . . Before I could go through the metal detectors to get to the courtroom, a Navy official had already taken Jesus' name in vain. No trial for that. No penalty. No problem. But use the name in reverence, in honor or in prayer, and you'll find yourself looking in the face of a court-martial. Welcome to the criminalization of Christianity. . . . This case is really about Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter, who ordered that every chaplain in the Navy worship his god – the "government god" of "non-sectarian" goodness who has no name and certainly no son by whom someone might be offended. But Chaplain Klingenschmitt told Navy Secretary Nebuchadnezzar, uh, I mean Winter, that he couldn't bow to his government god and had to proclaim the God of the Bible – who has a Son with an illegal name.
The ACLU: A bunch of theocrats? 9-11-06 --Think about it a minute. . . . Compare the concept of democracy – where individuals may speak and act and express their faith according to their own understandings – with theocracy, where an elite few dictate what all individuals can and cannot say, do or express concerning their beliefs. . . . Think Iran. . . . Think Ahmadinejad and his coterie of Islamist extremists, exercising total control over the oil giant nation, funding and arming Hezbollah, orchestrating much of the inhuman violence in Iraq, promoting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and terrorist murder around the world, actively and defiantly preparing nuclear capability while at the same time maintaining an absolute dictatorship over the religious practices – even expressed public opinions – of Iran's millions of citizens. . . . Not a pretty picture, is it? . . . Now think ACLU. . . . Think a relatively small, but highly organized group of lawyers, rather extravagantly funded by ultraliberal donors, overtly defending and promoting activities and "progressive" judges' rulings that are very offensive to the majority of Americans. Think of a little group who portray themselves as "defenders" of civil liberties, who increasingly and arrogantly intimidate elected officials into defying the expressed wishes of the majority and thereby deprive them of civil liberties! . . . Think an elitist coterie who twist and redefine the expressed intentions of the framers of the Constitution in order to defend anarchists, pedophiles, sworn enemies of our nation, aberrant sexual practices, blasphemies of all kinds and attacks on our hallowed institutions – and who at the same time proceed against every kind of public expression of faith or religion, always misappropriating a phrase not even in our Constitution, "separation of church and state." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ACLU: American Christian Loathers Union By Marsha West, NewsWithViews.com 9/1/06 -- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been called the “most dangerous organization in America.” And rightly so. . . . The ACLU is a secular organization that exploits the law to impose their anti-God agenda. Its lawyers litigate lawsuits that aim to take away our Constitutional right to freedom of religion. The ACLU wants to erase any mention of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob found in public places. They have fought to remove "One nation, under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, they want to erase "In God we trust" from our currency and rid the country of all religious displays such as the Ten Commandments, Christian holiday displays and state mottos. They do this under the guise of the so-called wall of separation of church and state, or what has come to be known as the establishment-clause of the First Amendment. What is the ACLU's position on church-state separation? There shall be no mention of God on public property. Period. . . . Courts, legal scholars and historians have quarreled over the true meaning of the establishment-clause ever since the Bill of Rights was ratified. So it is continually evolving as each new case is brought before the court. . . . The ACLU has been known to use fear, intimidation, and disinformation. As a result many public officials and educational leaders mistakenly believe that they have no choice but to silence any form of Christian religious expression. ACLU lawyers are fully aware that most government schools don’t have the funds to fight expensive lawsuits so they often get what they want. The attorneys who agree to take on these lawsuits are hostile to God. In the Bible when someone’s hostile to God they’re called anti-Christs. . . . Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the liberal judges that legislate from the bench, traditions we’ve held in this country for over 200 years are suddenly deemed unconstitutional. The far-Left won’t rest until God has been driven out of the public square! This is a ludicrous undertaking considering all the religious symbols on government structures throughout the U.S. Many of these symbols have been placed on prestigious government buildings -- including the Supreme Court!
Chaplain convicted of saying prayers 'in Jesus' name'
Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt
9-13-06 -- A military jury today convicted a Navy chaplain of a misdemeanor count of disobeying his commanding officer for wearing his uniform while delivering a prayer "in Jesus' name" at an assembly in front of the White House. . . . "But I had prior written permission to wear my uniform if it was a religious observance, (so) prayers are not a religious observance," Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt told WND after the military court-martial recessed for the night. . . . "Therefore I disobeyed my commanding officer's order not to pray in uniform," he said. . . . Klingenschmitt, who raised immediate concerns with this superiors when the Navy issued a new order that prayers could only be "non-sectarian," also has alleged he was punished for raising those concerns, and later notifying Congress and President Bush of the situation. CALIFORNIA
9-11-06 -- Imagine having the weight of a 20-ton cross thrust upon your shoulders. . . . Make that the infamous Mount Soledad Cross -- the source of nearly two decades worth of controversy and legal wrangling -- and that load may suddenly get a lot heavier. . . . For U.S. District Court Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, 56, bearing that burden is as much the result of a random judicial assignment process as it is a fact of life. . . . Next week, Moskowitz, who has more than 20 years of experience on the federal bench, is scheduled to hear procedural arguments in at least one, and possibly two, cases contending that the presence of the religious symbol on federal government property violates the U.S. Constitution. . . . One cross proponent recently said he thinks Moskowitz, who is Jewish, may be swayed by the inclusion of a Jewish veterans group as the plaintiff in one of those cases.
August 2006
Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Targeting People of Faith Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 1441 (Kuehl-D) into law today. SB 1441 would require all businesses and organizations receiving funding from the state to condone homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality or lose state funding. There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions. . . . “This isn’t even a veiled attempt at subtly advancing the radical homosexual agenda,” stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “SB 1441 is an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom in California.” . . . This legislation will prevent parochial schools, such as private, Christian, Catholic, Mormon, and many other religious universities, from receiving student financial assistance if they also maintain a student code of conduct preventing behavior deemed immoral by their religious beliefs. By withholding state funding from schools, students’ educational opportunities will be severely limited. And limiting educational opportunities will result in a less diverse, less educated citizenry. 8/31/06
Mixing God And Politics: Where Do Americans Really Stand? By Charles C. Haynes, First Amendment Center Caught in the crossfire of culture-war battles over religion and politics, most Americans may be ready to say "a plague on both your houses." . . . At least that's one way to read a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and released Aug. 24. . . . According to the survey, nearly half of Americans (49%) believe conservative Christians have gone too far in trying to impose their religious values on the country. At the same time, 69% think liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religion out of schools and government. . . . Though most Americans are religious (and most think religious influence on our society is a good thing), few identify with religious political movements on the left or right. Only 7% call themselves members of the "religious left," and only 11% say they belong to the "religious right." -- 8/31/06 ACLU Dishonors Veterans And Fallen War Heroes
Launches New Lawsuit Against the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross
The ACLU complaint, filed in San Diego federal court on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans and individual Jewish and Muslim plaintiffs, charges Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with violating the First Amendment. ACLU Dishonors Veterans And Fallen War Heroes
Launches New Lawsuit Against the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross
How the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's Decisions Are
Inconsistent
NEW YORK Christmas 'ban' prompts Supreme Court petition Policy allows recognition of Ramadan, Hanukkah, but not Christian holiday
A petition has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to repair damage done by a lower court in a ruling that allows the display in public schools of menorahs and star-and-crescent symbols, but not Christian symbols. . . . At issue is the policy of the New York City public schools that encourages the display of "secular" symbols such as the menorah at Hanukkah and the star and crescent symbol at Ramadan, but bans the Nativity at Christmas because of its religious meaning. . . . The Thomas More Law Center said the offending policy was instituted by the public schools in New York City, and then approved by a sharply divide opinion from the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals. . . . And Law Center staff lawyer Robert Muise told WorldNetDaily that a logical, constitutional resolution of this case at the Supreme Court level could impact dozens, maybe hundreds, of other cases. . . . "If you went back to what the founding fathers intended, you wouldn't have these endorsement tests of religious displays. All of these would be non-issues," he said. Thus, there wouldn't have to be lawsuits over various Christian, or other, symbols that appear in schools, on T-shirts or on money. . . . That's because the founding fathers, by their formal acknowledgement of God in foundational documents, showed they recognized God, they just didn't want the state to set up a church, he indicated. – 8/24/06 $1 million bill sent to appeals court
Arguments over Gospel tract to say there's no law against it
The notice of appeal has been filed, and the case of the Gospel tract made up to look like a $1 million bill is headed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. . . . But the preparation will be straightforward, because the arguments are going to be the same as those delivered at the district court level, according to a lawyer arguing the tract cannot be considered a counterfeit piece of money because there is no real $1 million bill in circulation. . . . "It's going to be the same basis on which we brought the lawsuit, where we were quite sure we'd prevail," Brian Fahling, a lawyer with the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, told WorldNetDaily. . . . "The statutes the Secret Service pointed to were inapplicable because the denomination itself is not in circulation. That seemed like a no-brainer," Fahling told WND. . . . And the bill carries a statement that it is not, in fact, legal tender. And it has several other serious differences from real money. – 8/23/06 Is Christianity still legal in America?
TEXAS 'China-level' Christian persecution coming Pastors say court's ruling in Houston Bible case 'breath-taking'
A few more court decisions like this week's over a display of a Bible in Houston and the United States will be approaching the "China-level" for Christian persecution, according to a leader in the midst of that battle. . . . The ruling from the Fifth Court of Appeals said the display of a Bible on public ground in Houston to honor the founder of a mission has to go, not because it was unconstitutional itself, but because it became unconstitutional when a Christian group rallied around it. . . . The pastor's group said that means any monument, building, or even feature of nature is an illegal "establishment of religion" if a church ceremony is held there. . . . "Connecting the dots between the eminent domain case, which says all of your churches are up for grabs if a town wants a mall, secondly you now have been told you do not have constitutional rights in the public square," Dave Welch, executive director of the Houston Area Pastors Conference, told WorldNetDaily. . . . "Any kind of an event is okay, as long as you didn't express any religious faith. What is that telling you? . . . "We're not persecuted yet, we know that. But we're on our way there. Add that to the surprising acceptance of militant Islam, the fear of speaking against that from a Christian standpoint and then we're dangerously approaching the point where we have literally given away and yielded our freedoms that were earned," Welch said. – 8/17/06
The ACLU: Malignant – and growing "Sit down, Mr. Citizen. I hate to tell you this, but I guess the best thing is just to spit it out. You've got cancer. . . . "And not just a localized cancer, but a malignant, fast-spreading strain of cancer. It's already attacked all your vital organs and is infiltrating through your circulatory system to even your outer extremities. Unless we take every action available to us and attack this disease on all fronts with the strongest possible treatments, you will surely die a painful, lingering, wasting death. And, I am bound to tell you this: It may already be too late for us to turn this thing around. This cancer is that virulent, that aggressive. I'm sorry, Mr. Citizen." . . . If this diagnosis were directed to you, how would you react? What would you do? . . . Would you shrug it off and start daydreaming about your plans for the weekend? Would you drift out to pick up a latte and an afternoon paper? Just go back to work and forget about it? Or would you contact a lawyer to draw up a will – while checking yourself into the best clinic you could find to fight the cancer with any and every treatment known to medicine today? Would you sell your house if necessary, drain any savings account, put every asset at your command on the line in a determined all-out campaign to live? . . . Bush Signs Law to Save War Memorial Cross
By Randal C. Archibold President Bush on Monday signed a law transferring a 29-foot-tall Latin cross high on a hill in San Diego to the federal government, stepping into a long-running dispute over the separation of church and state. . . . Mr. Bush, in the latest unusual action designed to save the Mount Soledad cross, in the La Jolla district, sided firmly with cross supporters who acknowledge that it is the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity but contend that it forms part of a secular war memorial. . . . An atheist, Philip K. Paulson, has fought the cross, built in 1954, for 17 years in federal and state courts. Mr. Paulson says the memorial was built only after he protested the cross and filed suit, and is a ruse to cover its intent to promote Christianity. . . . The legislation that Mr. Bush signed uses eminent domain to transfer the memorial land, which includes the cross and six concentric walls holding nearly 2,000 plaques honoring war veterans, from city ownership to the federal government. The private group that built the cross, the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, will continue to maintain it. . . . Mr. Bush signed the bill in the Oval Office with cross supporters, including the three Republican members of Congress from the San Diego area who pushed for it, a White House spokeswoman said. . . . Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, praised the move in an interview as a “great thing for us” because “the memorial is a fabric of San Diego.” . . . The transfer hardly resolves the dispute and instead may open another long legal chapter. Mr. Paulson and another man, Steve Trunk, have already filed papers in Federal District Court in San Diego to challenge the transfer and the presence of the cross on federal land as unconstitutional. -- WISCONSIN University of Wisconsin ignores the law, refuses to recognize Christian student organizations
ADF
attorney calls university officials to account for discriminatory
actions
The director of the Alliance Defense Fund’s Center for Academic Freedom sent a letter to University of Wisconsin officials today warning them about the illegality of their continued de-recognition of Christian student groups. . . . "Christian student groups shouldn’t be treated differently from other student organizations,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, who wrote the letter. “The University of Wisconsin has decided to force campus student organizations to violate their core beliefs, even in the face of controlling federal case law that bars them from doing so.” . . . “This is just another example of the university’s position of ‘free speech for me, but not for thee,’” French added. “The double standard here is amazing. To the University of Wisconsin, Christian speech must be marginalized or censored, while, at the same time, the University enthusiastically proclaims that the First Amendment protects Professor Kevin Barrett, a radical conspiracy theorist, when he advances his bizarre theory that the government staged the September 11, 2001, attacks. Even worse, the university is apparently willing to defy binding court decisions for the sake of excluding Christians.” -- August 10, 2006 WASHINGTON State Judge Admonished For Infringing Muslim Woman's Rights by Howard Friedman on Religion Clause Blog Washington state's Commission on Judicial Conduct has reprimanded Tacoma Municipal Court Judge David Ladenburg, who ejected a Muslim woman from his court room after she refused to remove her headscarf. Yesterday's Seattle Times reports that the Commission found Ladenburg created an appearance of bias by his actions, and issued an "admonishment" to him. Ladenburg subsequently apologized to the woman. (See prior posting.) The Commission's full opinion issued on Aug. 4 says that the evidence showed no actual bias or prejudice by Ladenburg, but instead merely a mistake of law about the individual's free exercise rights. It said: "A judge's honest but mistaken application of the law does not usually result in judicial discipline. Here, however, Respondent failed to consider settled law, which resulted in a courtroom practice that infringed upon constitutional rights and created an appearance of bias. Accordingly, Respondent's actions rise to the level of sanctionable conduct." In the disciplinary proceeding, Ladenburg agreed not retaliate against anyone involved in bringing charges against him. He also agreed not to repeat his conduct, to study the judicial conduct rules and to take a course on cultural competence. July 10, 2006 Attorney: PERA Could Stop ACLU Profits From Anti-Christian Lawsuits (AgapePress) - An attorney with the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (AFA Law Center) says the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has gained windfall profits from its anti-Christian litigation, and it is time for the system that allows this to be changed. . . . Recently, Rees Lloyd of the American Legion and a former staff attorney with the ACLU testified under oath before Congress about how the organization profits from its lawsuits attacking Christianity. Testifying in favor of Indiana Congressman John Hostettler's Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), H.R. 2679, Lloyd noted that the ACLU's attacks have been launched primarily against the Christian cross but the liberal litigation group has attacked Judaism's Star of David as well, and has reaped millions of dollars in attorney fees by going after local governments that recognize America's religious heritage in any way. . . . The ACLU received half a million dollars from the Alabama Ten Commandments case, and $950,000 in attorneys fees in a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts. Steve Crampton, chief counsel with the AFA Law Center and a constitutional law specialist, says the ACLU is able to collect these fees because of an obscure provision of the Civil Rights Act, which PERA is designed to amend. The Mythical Wall of Separation How a misused metaphor changed Church–State law, policy, and discourse
No metaphor in American letters has had a more profound influence on law and policy than Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." Today, this figure of speech is accepted by many Americans as a pithy description of the constitutionally prescribed church–state arrangement, and it has become the sacred icon of a strict separationist dogma that champions a secular polity in which religious influences are systematically and coercively stripped from public life. . . . In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church–state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment's prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion." "In the words of Jefferson," the justices famously declared, the First Amendment "was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State'…[that] must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." . . . In the half-century since this landmark ruling, the "wall of separation" has become the locus classicus of the notion that the First Amendment separated religion and the civil state, thereby mandating a strictly secular polity. The trope's continuing influence can be seen in Justice John Paul Stevens's recent warning that our democracy is threatened "[w]henever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government." . . . What is the source of this figure of speech, and how has this symbol of strict separation between religion and public life come to dominate church–state law and policy? Of Jefferson's many celebrated pronouncements, this is one of his most misunderstood and misused. I would like to challenge the conventional, secular myth that Thomas Jefferson, or the constitutional architects, erected a high wall between religion and the civil government. May 17, 2006 If "such lies and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust," said Archbishop Angelo Amato, the Vatican's secretary for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, "they would have justly provoked a world uprising." . . . The archbishop was speaking of "The Da Vinci Code," the Ron Howard film that debuts at Cannes and opens worldwide this week, and is expected to gross $500 million by summer's end. . . . The archbishop's point is undeniable. Blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban, published a few months ago in a Danish newspaper and reprinted on the front pages of Europe's major papers, ignited demonstrations in Muslim communities across Europe and violent and deadly riots across the Islamic world. . . . Leaders friendly to the West, from Egypt to Afghanistan, felt compelled to denounce the cartoons, as did many in the West, as a provocation and insult to the faith of a billion people. . . . In the 1990s, the British novelist Salman Rushdie spent years in hiding after Ayatollah Khomeini issued a "fatwa" calling for his killing for publishing the blasphemous "Satanic Verses." In the 1970s, the film "Muhammad," starring Anthony Quinn, was pulled from many U.S. theaters after bomb threats. The film had offended Muslim faithful by showing the face of Muhammad. . . . Last February, British historian David Irving, whose books on World War II have sold in the millions, was convicted in an Austrian court of Holocaust denial and sentenced to three years in prison. His crime: In two speeches in Austria in 1989, Irving asserted there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. Though he recanted in court, it did not save him. Prosecutors felt his sentence was too light. CALIFORNIA Attorney Poised to Exercise All Options to Preserve Mt. Soledad Cross
By Allie Martin PENNSYLVANIA Court: City officials’ actions in restricting speech in public park were unconstitutional ADF-allied attorney wins declaratory judgment for public preachers barred from expressing views
Sealing a victory for religious free speech, a federal district court judge issued a declaratory judgment Monday in favor of two preachers muzzled by city officials from speaking in a public park. An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney represents the preachers’ organization of which one of the men, Pastor Jim Grove, is a part. . . . “Christian speech shouldn’t be treated differently than any other kind of speech,” said ADF-allied attorney Leonard Brown of the law firm Clymer & Musser. “This ruling, coming after a jury found two police officers had violated Pastor Grove’s First Amendment rights when they arrested him, clearly shows that other Harrisburg officials violated this basic constitutional right. VIRGINIA
Bureaucrats target 'Cowboy Church' A county in Virginia has cited a farmer there because he hosts Thursday night worship services in his barn on a 900-acre farm. . . . According to a statement from Liberty Counsel, which is representing the man, Garland Simmons recently received a Notice of Violation from Bedford County stating that his barn cannot be used for religious services. Simmons' 900-acre piece of property apparently isn't zoned for such meetings. . . . "Barns in Bedford County can apparently be used for dancing to the tunes of Toby Keith or Reba, but a church service reciting the Psalms of David or praise and worship with Casting Crowns are not allowed," said Liberty Counsel's Mathew Staver. "Bedford County is wrong to prohibit religious services in a barn in the middle of a field. Bedford County should immediately reverse its decision, because it is treading on unconstitutional ground." May 9, 2006
Banned in Boston
February 16, 2006
The Secrets of Jay Sekulow
Justices take issue with ban of
religious tea
. . . Judicial activists egotistically put the emphasis on "I" in supposedly interpreting the law instead of on faithfully fathoming and following the intention of those who made the law. . . . The men who wrote and ratified the First Amendment were Christians who defined religion in terms of Judeo-Christian theism. . . . To them, religion did not mean non-religion or irreligion. Or Satanism. . . . James Madison, Father of the Constitution and drafter of the First Amendment, defined religion as "the duty which we owe our Creator," thereby necessarily excluding non-religion or atheism: We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance to the Assemby of Virginia Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote of a "wall" between church and state after drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom that explicitly acknowledged God, declared in his second presidential inaugural address: In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General [federal] Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. Jefferson surely respected a person's right to be an atheist, but he did not define atheism as religion. [More] Persecution Of Christians Growing In The United States by Thomas Horn More Christians died for their faith in the twentieth century than at any other time in history, says Christian Solidarity International. Global reports indicate that over 150,000 Christians were martyred last year, chiefly outside of the United States. However, statistics are changing: persecution of Christians is on the increase in the United States. What's happening to bring about this change? According to some experts a pattern is emerging reminiscent of Jewish persecution in post war Germany. "Isolation of, and discrimination against Christians is growing almost geometrically" says Don McAlvany in The Midnight Herald. "This is the way it started in Germany against the Jews. As they became more isolated and marginalized by the Nazi propaganda machine, as popular hatred and prejudice against the Jews increased among the German people, wholesale persecution followed. Could this be where the growing anti-Christian consensus in America is taking us?" Tolerance of anti-Christian attitudes in the United States is escalating. Recently, a woman in Houston, Texas was ordered by local police to stop handing out gospel tracts to children who knocked on her door during Halloween. Officers informed her that such activity is illegal (not true), and that she would be arrested if she continued. In Madison, Wisconsin, the Freedom from Religion Foundation distributes anti-Christian pamphlets to public school children entitled, "We Can Be Good Without God." The entertainment industry and syndicated media increasingly vilify Christians as sewer rats, vultures, and simple-minded social ingrates. The FBI and the Clinton White House brand fundamentalist Christian groups as hate mongers and potential terrorists. The Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago warns that plans by Southern Baptists to hold a convention in the Windy City next year might foment "hate crimes" against minorities, causing some Christians to fear that speaking openly about their religious beliefs will soon be considered a crime. All this, while Christianity itself is often a target of hate-crime violence. We remember the students at Columbine, and the United Methodist minister who was fatally beaten and burned in a remote part of Chattanooga, Tennessee, to name a few of the recent examples of interpersonal violence aimed at believers. FULL STORY
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Now I sit me down in school where praying is
against the rule
If Scripture now the class recites, it violates
the Bill of Rights. Our hair can be purple, orange or green, that's no offense; it's a freedom scene. The law is specific, the law is precise prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall might offend someone
with no faith at all
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, and
pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen, and the
'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
We can get our condoms and birth controls, study
witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
It's scary here I must confess,
|
 |
Once a government
is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it
has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly
repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its
citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear
Four
freedoms: The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in
the world. The second is freedom of everyone to worship God in his own
way, everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want . . .
everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear . . . anywhere
in the world. |
|
Due to server's technical
difficulties the numbering restarted on 6/19/06
As of 6/19/06 you are visitor number:
Inaugurated on December 18, 2004
Updated: 11/19/2009
Jay Sekulow,
chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, had
cheerfully predicted that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers had
"turned the corner" and would never withdraw her name from
consideration. . . . Now, a few hours after Miers proved him dead
wrong, Sekulow sounded as upbeat as ever. "She did the noble thing,"
Sekulow told the million-plus people listening to his daily radio show
on Christian stations last Thursday, adding, confidentially, "I saw
this coming." The next nominee, he predicted, would be a sitting judge
just as worthy of support as Miers. . . . It was vintage Sekulow:
gliding over contradictions, pleased to be a player in nomination
politics, and more than ready to play again. In recent weeks, Sekulow,
the leading Supreme Court advocate of the Christian right, emerged as
the steadiest and most visible of a dwindling number of social
conservatives willing to support Miers. Because of that steadfast
loyalty, he is likely to play a key role in campaigning for whoever
replaces her.
