|
|
|
|
|
Religious News & Views 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
Religious News & Views 2008 |
Religious Persecution in America
|
Religious News & Views 2008 Religious News & Views from 2007 Religious News & Views from 2006
Religious News & Views 2008 Click headline for full story June 2008
Atheist wants Frankenmuth to remove religious symbols
6-21-08 -- If this popular tourist mecca 80 miles north of Detroit wears Germany on one of its sleeves, the other contains Martin Luther. . . . Founded by Lutheran missionaries who vowed to retain their old ways, the community of 4,800 has one of the highest concentrations of Lutherans in the Midwest. The city seal contains a Luther rose, the symbol for Lutheranism. . . . So when local atheist Lloyd Clarke wanted to remove a cross from the seal, along with ones in a city park and on a state bridge, residents rose nearly as one against him. . . . Children taunted the 66-year-old Clarke. A letter writer accused him of trying to reduce Frankenmuth to "Satan's pit." Another said crosses were as much a part of the town as its renowned chicken dinners. . . . "People who like to cite the Constitution to justify their hatred and bigotry should take the time to read it," resident Judi King wrote to the local paper. . . . The Ann-Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center announced earlier this month it has been retained by the city to defend the crosses on the city seal and city park. . . . The city removed the ones on the downtown bridge after Clarke argued they were an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
Bible citation costs couple jobs, home © 2008 WorldNetDaily
6-20-08 -- For eight years Daniel and Sharon Dixon, apartment managers in Lake City, Fla., displayed in the apartment complex's management office a stained glass depiction of flowers with the words "Consider the lilies … Matthew 6:28" written in the lower left corner – an act for which they were suddenly fired from their management jobs and evicted from their apartment. . . . Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom that is representing the Dixons, told WND that neither before nor after the incident were the Dixons charged with any wrongdoing other than protesting the removal of the artwork and loss of their jobs. . . . "They were suddenly terminated as a result of the religious bigotry of one supervisor," Staver said in a press release. "The Dixons lost their jobs and were booted out on the street, solely because artwork in their office made reference to the Bible." . . . The Dixons managed and provided maintenance for the Thornwood Terrace Apartments, a government-subsidized complex owned and operated by the Hallmark Companies and Hallmark Management. The couple was permitted to live in the complex as part of their compensation.
Judge blasts state ban on distributing Bibles to students Law unconstitutional because it 'encourages arbitrary enforcement' © 2008 WorldNetDaily 6-19-08 -- A federal court has declared a Florida law banning representatives of the Gideons from handing out Bibles within 500 feet of any school in the state unconstitutional because it is vague and actually "encourages arbitrary enforcement." . . . The ruling in a case brought by the Alliance Defense Fund comes from U.S. District Court Judge K. Michael Moore and addresses an incident that developed Jan. 19, 2007, at Key Largo School, run by Principal Annette Martinson. . . . The law actually prohibits anyone without "legitimate business" from being within 500 feet of schools in the state and specifies "each principal or designee of each public or private school in this state shall notify the appropriate law enforcement agency to prohibit any person from loitering in the school safety zone who does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone or any other authorization, or license to enter or remain in the school safety zone or does not otherwise have invitee status in the designated safety zone." . . . The issue arose because of team of Gideons, known for paying all of their own expenses out of pocket while raising all of their own funds and giving away Bibles, had been distributing the Scriptures at Key Largo School.
6-11-08 -- "Right of privacy," "my body, my choice" and "live and let live," are trite phrases that are commonly used by those in our society who wish to live a libertine lifestyle free of any moral restraint. Abortion, homosexuality and same-sex "marriage," they argue, are "rights" with which government should not interfere in a free society. But recent events demonstrate that these so-called proponents of free choice want not only to be free to live an immoral lifestyle, they also want to force everyone else to accept their abnormal behavior or face serious consequences. And they will not hesitate to use the force of government to compel others to sacrifice their religious convictions so that society will only accept their warped beliefs as legitimate. . . . Consider the fact that late last month, after the California Supreme Court had just ruled that same-sex couples should have the right to "marry," that same court heard oral arguments in a case in which a lesbian couple had sued two doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate one of the women so that they could have a child together. The doctors had refused because of their Christian beliefs, but attorneys for the two women argued that such a refusal violated the California Civil Rights Act because it prohibits businesses from discriminating against people based on their "sexual orientation." . . . Justices of the California Supreme Court apparently were not interested in the religious beliefs of the doctors. Justice Coral Corrigan condescendingly asked one of the attorneys for the doctors: "What about the question, if you can't provide this kind of service, then don't go into this kind of practice." When doctors or anyone else in this country are forced to choose between their religious convictions and their livelihood, we no longer live in a free society. . . . Consequences flowing from the California same-sex "marriage" decision provide another example of disapproval for religious freedom. When Clerk Greg Smith of the San Diego County Assessor and Recorder's Office publicly stated that his office would not force its employees to perform same-sex "marriages" if such employees have serious moral or religious objections to them, those who favored same-sex "marriage" were "outraged."
Supremes asked to stop 'gay' indoctrination
Parents say stealth lessons undermine Christian faith 6-5-08 -- The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked review a case in which parents are objecting to the actions of a school district where officials are trying "to systematically indoctrinate young children into disbelieving core ten[e]ts of their families' faith." . . . The case on which WND has reported previously involves Massachusetts father David Parker. His Boston law firm, Denner Pelligrino LLP, now has filed a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking for a review of January's ruling from a federal appeals court in Boston. . . . There, Judge Sandra Lynch said those who are concerned over civil rights violations "may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state." Earlier District Judge Mark Wolf had ordered that school officials' work to undermine Christian beliefs is needed to prepare children for citizenship, and if parents don't like it they can elect a different school committee or homeschool their children. <more> Does the Constitution Permit Government to Favor Religion over Nonreligion? Justice Scalia Says Yes
6-4-08 --Speaking over the past weekend at the annual dinner of an Orthodox Jewish group, Agudath Israel of America, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment should not be construed to forbid government from favoring “religion over nonreligion.” Justice Scalia has made this point before, both on and off the bench, and he may be correct when he says, as he did before Agudath Israel, that such a prohibition “does not . . . represent the American tradition,” but only if one excludes from that tradition the last forty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. . . . The proposition that government may not favor religion over nonreligion does, however, represent the current doctrine of the Supreme Court, albeit with a few exceptions. And of course, Justice Scalia acknowledges as much. He offers his view as a challenge to the modern case law—not a characterization of it. . . . There is a strong possibility that the next President will have the opportunity to appoint one or more Justices in whose hands turns the balance of power on church-state separation issues (as well as many other issues). Thus, now is an especially good time to evaluate Justice Scalia’s claim. What the Case Law Says About Favoring Religion Over Nonreligion In the 1968 case of Epperson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a state law that forbade public school teachers from instructing their students in the theory of evolution. In the course of his opinion, Justices Abe Fortas wrote,“The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” This language has been repeatedly cited and applied by the Court since then.
Scalia Decries Drift of Court On Religion U.S. Tradition Not Neutral, Justice Tells Torah Sages
6-2-08 --Justice Scalia, speaking at a time when gay marriage, public education, and the war on terror are creating cases that test the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, chose the banquet of a large group of Orthodox Jews here to declare that the Constitution should not be read to "banish the Almighty from the public forum." . . . In a speech delivered last night from a dais on which he was surrounded by venerable, bearded rabbis dressed in black and wearing elegant hats, Justice Scalia drew a sharp distinction between America and Europe. But he decried what he saw as the Supreme Court's prevailing, if recent, jurisprudence that holds that government "cannot favor religion over nonreligion." . . . "That rule does not, of course, represent the American tradition," Justice Scalia said.
May 2008
ACLU: Judge Is Again Displaying Ten Commandments in Court in Contempt of Ban
5-30-08 -- (AP) - The American Civil Liberties Union says an Ohio judge has again posted the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, defying rulings that he not display them. . . . The group on Thursday asked a federal court to hold Richland County Common Pleas Judge James DeWeese in contempt. . . . In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court's decision that a framed poster of the commandments in DeWeese's court violated the Constitution. . . . DeWeese denies he's displaying the Ten Commandments now and accuses the ACLU of attempting to silence speech. . . . While there is currently a poster in his courtroom that includes the commandments, DeWeese says it illustrates a debate about philosophies that affect the handling of criminal cases. Tyranny of the atheist minority
5-16-08 -- Daily there are news reports of atheists offended by prayers at graduations and football games; offended by a Cross or Star of David; offended by Christmas carols or patriotic hymns; offended by Christmas trees and menorahs; offended by the Ten Commandments or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; offended a teacher might hint there may be a Creator; offended a soldier said "God bless you" at a funeral; offended the Boy Scout Oath says "Do my duty to God and my country"; or offended by a cross on a Veterans Memorial. . . . Whereas basic Christian teaching is to forgive when offended, these atheists, when offended, protest, intimidate, threaten and sue to have their will enforced as law. . . . But exactly how many atheists are in America, anyway? . . . USA Today published Feb. 25, 2008, the results of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. . . . This survey "of the people" reported that 80.2 percent of Americans hold Judeo-Christian beliefs (51.3 percent Evangelical/Mainline Protestant Christian; 23.9 percent Catholic; 1.6 percent Orthodox & other Christian; 1.7 percent Mormon; and 1.7 percent Jewish.) . . . Those not reporting or who said nothing in particular represented 12.9 percent, while 1.2 percent were Unitarian-Universalist-Spiritual-New Age-Native; 0.7 percent Buddhist; 0.6 percent Muslim; 0.4 percent Hindu; 0.3 percent Other World Religions, 2.4 percent agnostic ... and only 1.6 percent atheist. . . . Imagine that – only 1.6 percent atheists, yet their beliefs are becoming the law of the land. . . . A minority forcing its will on the majority – isn't this the classic definition of tyranny? . . . Americans may as well be back in colonial times when the king of England used government to enforce his minority views. The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, stated: The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. ... A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. In accepting the Democrat Party's re-nomination for president, June 27, 1936, Franklin D. Roosevelt stated: In 1776, we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy – from the 18th century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God. Roosevelt explained America's founders fought the Revolution so "the people" could be their own rulers. Abraham Lincoln agreed in his Gettysburg Address, Nov. 19, 1863: That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Alexander Hamilton said in New York's ratification debates, June 21, 1788: The will of the people makes the essential principle of the government. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816: Try ... every provision of our Constitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. (A.E. Bergh, Writings, 15:32) James Madison wrote in Philadelphia, Jan. 31, 1792: The past frequency of wars [is traced] to a will in the government independent of the will of the people. . . . But is the will of the people still reflected in government? . . . Are the people still their own rulers? Lincoln warned in his First Inaugural Address, 1861: The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers. In order to see if the government reflects the beliefs of the people, one must find out what the people believe.
Ban on bowing for prayer challenged
5-1-08 -- Members of the legal team for the Rutherford Institute have asked the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a case in which school officials ordered a football coach not to bow his head while his players voluntarily took part in a pre-game prayer. . . . "If this ruling is allowed to stand, it will mean that high school teachers across the United States will have no free speech or academic freedom rights at all," said John W. Whitehead, president of the organization, in a statement yesterday. . . . "This undermines a time-honored tradition that has less to do with religion than it does athletic tradition. It's a sad statement on our rights as Americans that schools are no longer bastions of freedom," he said. . . . A three-member panel of the court recently ruled that the First Amendment does not protect such expressive conduct exhibited by football coach Marcus Borden. April 2008
"Secular" Discrimination Against Religion 4-27-08 -- Many people today are concerned about the "separation of church and state." More often than not, this means keeping religion out of the public sphere. They say the public sphere ought to be "secular," free from talk of religion lest someone be offended. Religious freedom is interpreted as the freedom not to hear another person's religious convictions. . . . Unfortunately, this freedom of religion is freedom from religion. The Founders specifically guaranteed the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech by demanding that the government not make any laws to limit these freedoms. The first amendment in the bill of rights states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…." The Founders understood that these freedoms were in danger of being eliminated from the public square. . . . Sadly, these freedoms of the individual are no longer respected. The ultimate freedom is no longer the freedom to speak or practice one's religion, but the freedom to not be offended by anyone else. It is now seen as rude if one person defends their religious beliefs publicly. Beliefs about morality are no longer welcome in the public sphere. The only place left for religion is within the walls of a person's home or church. This new understanding of religion's place in culture has destroyed the freedom of religion which the Founder's sought to protect. Worse yet, Americans have ceased to understand religion altogether.
4-24-08 -- One issue that is not being discussed much at the moment is what’s at stake with our federal courts. Some federal judges are now telling pastors and priests what they can and cannot say during prayers. And some of it is happening in Indiana — the May 6 primary state. . . . While articles in law reviews and scholarly journals are often dry and academic, some point out legal issues that are actually impacting the lives of people. Ken Klukowski’s article in the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, “In Whose Name We Pray: Fixing the Establishment Clause Train Wreck Involving Legislative Prayer,” is one of them. . . . When clergy offer prayers to open daily sessions of Congress, statehouses, school boards, or what have you, it’s called “legislative prayer.” Opening governmental sessions with such prayers goes back hundreds of years, before America was founded. . . . Yet now certain federal judges in various states are forbidding certain things to be said in prayer, with one even issuing an injunction against the Indiana House of Representatives to not allow any pastor or priest to utter the name “Jesus” in their prayers. . . . The Supreme Court upheld legislative prayer in the 1983 case of Marsh v. Chambers. In Marsh, the Court held that such prayers were constitutional so long as they did not evangelize or advance a particular faith, or disparage other faiths. . . . Since 1983, society has become less tolerant of public expressions of faith in general and Christians in particular. So in recent years, various groups have sued, claiming that when a Christian names Jesus Christ in his prayer it advances Christianity in a way that violates the Marsh rule.
Broward panel: Jewish woman had right to hang mezuzah on condo door
4-24-08 -- Broward County's human rights board on Wednesday backed a Jewish woman against the condo association that ordered her to remove a mezuzah from her door last year. . . . A three-member panel of the Broward County Human Rights Board unanimously found reasonable cause to believe the board at the Port Condominium discriminated against lawyer Laurie Richter, 29, when members ordered her to remove the 5-inch mezuzah she had temporarily attached to her doorpost. . . . A mezuzah is a small case containing a religious message that many Jews place on their door frames. . . . The association at the condo, at 1819 SE 17th St. in Fort Lauderdale, "hasn't shown a legitimate reason for its actions," Randy Fleischer, chairman of the panel, said after the hearing. It is clear, he said, that the condo association exceeded its authority by threatening Richter with a $1,000 fine for attaching something to her door frame. . . . Board members Hillary Tescher and Don Samuels agreed the case raises possible federal, state and county fair-housing law violations. . . . The next step in Richter's battle is expected to be mediation between her and the association that operates the 16-story, 129-unit building. If that doesn't work, Richter's attorney, Randall C. Berg Jr., said he will file a lawsuit for an unspecified amount of damages against the association. Damages could include her attorney's fees, emotional distress, pain and suffering.
Indiana Judge Dismisses ACLU Challenge, Upholds 'God' License Plate
4-18-08 -- A judge has upheld the issuance of Indiana license plates bearing the message "In God We Trust," dismissing a constitutional challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. . . . Marion Superior Court Judge Gary L. Miller wrote in a 13-page opinion that the plates were comparable to standard plates issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and were created specifically as such by the Legislature. . . . "Courts are not to second-guess the Indiana General Assembly when it comes to calculations of this sort," Miller wrote, contrasting the `In God We Trust' plates with other specialty plates that require the payment of administrative fees. . . . Miller said the issuance of the plates did not violate the section of the Indiana Constitution that forbids the Legislature from granting special privileges or immunities not available to all citizens. . . . The ruling, issued April 10, denies a motion for summary judgment in the suit by the ACLU on behalf of Mark E. Studler, an Allen County resident who has an Environmental Trust plate for which he had to pay extra fees.
ACLU gets damages over portrait Group also awarded fees in Slidell case
4-17-08 --
A federal judge on Wednesday agreed with the American Civil
Liberties Union of Louisiana that a decision by Slidell officials to
hang a portrait of Jesus on the wall at Slidell City Court was
unlawful. It awarded the organization nominal damages as well as
attorneys fees for its role in a lawsuit filed last summer. . . .
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle provides
the ACLU with $1 in damages and paves the way for the ACLU to
collect the fees it incurred when it sued the court, Judge Jim Lamz,
the city of Slidell and St. Tammany Parish. . . . Marjorie Esman,
the ACLU of Louisiana's executive director, hailed the judge's
decision as a victory for all people, who she said the legal system
is designed to protect. However, she said she would have preferred
to settle the matter amicably and in a way that wouldn't have forced
Slidell taxpayers to foot the cost.
Protesting 'gay' promo draws threats
4-16-08 -- A coalition of Christian organizations is working to encourage students to stay home when their schools recognize the "Day of Silence" homosexual lifestyle promotion this year – and the reaction has started coming in. . . . Liberty Counsel reports it has had complaints from parents and students about a wide range of misbehaviors or misrepresentations being presented by schools. . . . For example, in one school district a principal told a father if his son was not at school on the "Day of Silence" the student would be given a failing grade for the year, in Indiana parents were told by public school officials it was "against the law" for them to cancel the program or excuse absences that day, and in Iowa, a school board member said a student refusing to speak throughout a school day was no more disruptive than a "Christian wearing a cross." . . . "When it comes to the Day of Silence, silence is not an option," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's School of Law. . . . "Students have the right not to remain silent. Students can refuse to attend school. They may mount a counter-protest in support of purity and the traditional family. While schools may be required to allow clubs to meet on campus, schools do not have to promote the Day of Silence. Students to not have the right to remain silent when called upon by teachers," he said.
3rd Circuit: Coach's Moment of Silence Constitutes Endorsement of Religion
4-16-08 -- In a closely watched school prayer case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a New Jersey high school football coach's First Amendment rights were not violated when school district officials ordered him to stop his practice of getting on bended knee with his players as they bowed their heads for a moment of silence before a game. . . . Reversing a lower court's decision in favor of East Brunswick High School football coach Marcus Borden, the appellate court found that since Borden had led the team in prayers for 23 years, his new practice of engaging in the silent acts of "taking a knee" and bowing his head would be reasonably perceived as an endorsement of religion. . . . "Based on the history of Borden's conduct with the team's prayers, his acts cross the line and constitute an unconstitutional endorsement of religion," 3rd Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher wrote in Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick. . . . "Although Borden believes that he must continue to engage in these actions to demonstrate solidarity with his team, which is perhaps good for a football team's unity, we must consider whether a reasonable observer would perceive his actions as endorsing religion, not whether Borden intends to endorse religion," Fisher wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Theodore A. McKee Jr. and Maryanne Trump Barry.
Lesbian demands control over Christian's daughter Woman flees same-sex 'union,' now fights to raise 6-year-old
4-15-08 -- Arguments have been scheduled in the Virginia Supreme Court in a case in which a lesbian is demanding to exercise parental rights over the six-year-old daughter of a Christian woman. . . . The case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court where a ruling could determine whether states can set up same-sex "marriage" provisions, and then demand that other states follow their precedents. . . . The case, scheduled for oral arguments Thursday morning, is being argued by Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, on behalf of Lisa Miller, a woman who left a lesbian relationship to become a Christian, and her now-six-year-old daughter. . . . The other part of the now-terminated relationship, Janet Jenkins, has alleged that because of Miller's Christian parenting practices, she no longer is a fit mother.
Christian photographers fined for refusing same-sex ceremony State hits couple with $6,600 penalty for violating anti-discrimination law
4-11-08 -- The state of New Mexico has ordered a family owned photography company to pay more than $6,600 for declining a demand to take pictures at a same-sex ceremony, and a lawyer who is working on an appeal says it is an example of how "non-discrimination" or "hate" laws can be weapons in the hands of homosexual activists. . . . "The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate there conscience," said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is working on an appeal. . . . "The commission's decision shows stunning disregard for our client's First Amendment rights, and we will appeal…," he said. . . . The case before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission was brought by Vanessa Willock against Elane Photography LLC, which is run by owners Jon and Elaine Huguenin. . . . The couple that included Willock approached Elaine Huguenin and wanted the Huguenins to photograph a "commitment ceremony" the women wanted to hold. . . . "Huguenin declined because her Christian beliefs are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony," according to the law firm. . . . Willock then alleged she was a victim of "discrimination" because of her sexual orientation, and brought the complaint before the state agency.
Prof to student: Keep the faith, lose the grade 4-11-08 -- A community college in New York has been presented with a demand letter from the American Center for Law and Justice to halt a professor's classroom practices that allegedly have damaged at least one student – so far. . . . The letter from the ACLJ targets Suffolk County Community College and will be the prelude to a federal lawsuit if the issue isn't resolved, the organization said. . . . At issue is a professor's demand that students "change their own personal viewpoints or state that they are unsure of whether their own personal beliefs are correct" on religious issues, according to the letter. . . . That is an expression of hostility to religion, the letter explains. . . . The ACLJ said it is representing Gina DeLuca, a student who has been punished with lower grades and has been labeled "closed-minded" by a professor, who remained unidentified in the letter, because he demands that students acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in his philosophy class, which is required for graduation. . . . "The ACLJ has sent a letter demanding that the school end its discriminatory actions against DeLuca or face a federal lawsuit," the organization's announcement said.
Judge Rules against ACLU, Upholds Christian Charity LifeSiteNews (www.lifesitenews.com) 04-07-08 -- Attorneys with the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law center based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, began providing legal assistance to Baptist Home's principle attorney John Sheller, soon after the ACLU's lawsuit was filed in 2000. (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week, federal judge Charles R. Simpson, III, dismissed an ACLU lawsuit against a Kentucky Baptist Home for Children (recently renamed Sunrise Children's Services) following an 8-year legal battle. . . . The case began when Alicia Pedreira, who had been an employee of the Home for seven months, sued the Home, which provides social services for at-risk children, after she was terminated for openly living a lesbian lifestyle. The reason for the termination was that her lifestyle was contrary to the Home's Christian mission and values. . . . Pedreira's first lawsuit, filed in 2000, claimed her firing was an act of religious discrimination. However, the court rejected that claim in 2001, but allowed her and several other taxpayers represented by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State to pursue a claim under the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under this claim the Home was accused of using government funds to promote religion. . . . This past week, however, relying on the precedent of the U.S Supreme Court's 2007 Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation decision, Judge Simpson dismissed the new claim on the grounds that taxpayers do not have standing to sue over executive branch funding of faith-based agencies. An attorney for the plaintiffs indicated they will appeal Judge Simpson's ruling. Atheist, Christian lawyers debate God in gov't
04-01-08 -- It wasn't the showdown at the O.K. Corral, but a recent debate between two lawyers -- one atheist and one Christian -- did shed some light on the debate about God and government and on the hostility faced by some Christians who are politically active. . . . Atheist attorney Michael Newdow -- famous for his failed effort to get the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance -- came to Columbia University last week to debate the alleged "separation of church and state." During his appearance, he made the same argument he has made in numerous public speeches -- like this one. "You know, a lot of people say, 'Well, the framers wanted God in our government.' They didn't," Newdow claimed. "They have a Constitution that does not have God in it. It specifically excludes God from it with the First Amendment." . . . But Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) senior counsel Jordan Lorence argues Newdow is reading into the Constitution what he wishes it said. . . . "When [the Establishment Clause in] the Constitution says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' that had clear context," the attorney explains. "[W]hat it meant was formal, legal prohibitions on the exercise of religion by individuals, requiring them to get preacher licenses, forcing them to pay tithes to the state church, forcing them to attend the state church and attend its classes, that type of thing."
Church pursues felony over anointing with oil Woman accused of damages estimated at $2,875 while praying
04-01-08 -- A United Church of Christ congregation in upstate New York is pursuing a felony criminal mischief charge against a Christian who allegedly protested a homosexual festival by anointing its church building with cooking or baking oil. . . . A status hearing was held today in the case brought by the Park Church of Elmira, N.Y., against Holly Somers. Prosecutors confirmed Somers had been charged but not yet indicted and there had been discussions with a public defender representing her. . . . It is the second criminal case to emerge from the city's promotional event for "gay" pride in 2007. WND previously reported a case against four Christians fined for praying in Wisner Park, the public park adjacent to Park Church, during the pride festival. . . . A notice of appeal now has been filed in that case by the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance that defends the right to hear and speak the truth. . . . "Christians shouldn't be punished for expressing their religious beliefs," said Joel Oster, a senior legal counsel for the ADF. "They have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else in America." . . . That case stems from a visit by seven Christians to the "gay" pride event. They were convicted of "disorderly conduct" even though the police officer who arrested them testified their actions were peaceful.
Student Sues Wisconsin School After Getting a Zero for Religious Drawing
04-01-08 -- A Tomah High School student has filed a federal lawsuit alleging his art teacher censored his drawing because it featured a cross and a biblical reference. . . . The lawsuit alleges other students were allowed to draw "demonic" images and asks a judge to declare a class policy prohibiting religion in art unconstitutional. . . . "We hear so much today about tolerance," said David Cortman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group representing the student. "But where is the tolerance for religious beliefs? The whole purpose of art is to reflect your own personal experience. To tell a student his religious beliefs can legally be censored sends the wrong message." . . . Tomah School District Business Manager Greg Gaarder said the district hadn't seen the lawsuit and declined to comment. . . . According to the lawsuit, the student's art teacher asked his class in February to draw landscapes. The student, a senior identified in the lawsuit by the initials A.P., added a cross and the words "John 3:16 A sign of love" in his drawing. . . . His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were making remarks about it. He refused, and she gave him a zero on the project.
March 2008 Barry Lynn: An American United with others Against the Constitution Non-profit Org Uses Tax Exempt Status to Subvert First Amendment
Americans United for Separation of Church and State defines itself as "a national non-profit religious liberty watchdog organization dedicated to preserving the Constitutional Rights of religious freedom guaranteed to all Americans in the First Amendment to our Constitution." Religious freedom includes, we presume, the right to practice one's religious faith. And what if that faith involves addressing the civil authorities with the law of God? Speaking in support of good candidates for office? What if it includes imprecatory prayers concerning God and the wicked; i.e. that He destroy the wicked in their unrepentant pursuit of evil doing? Is that okay? . . . The leftist AUSCS has been harassing orthodox (conservative) churches for years. It advocates for a false legal doctrine of "separation of church and state" and then applies it against those particular churches which hold a high (and traditional) view of the Scriptures and their relevant application to the pubic square. The AUSCS uses its own tax exempt status to harass and silence its political opponents. . . . "Pastor" Lynn Calls on IRS to Harass Pastor Wiley Drake (and others) . . . Pastor (of no local church) Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State wants to shut down Southern Baptist Pastor Wiley Drake. While monitoring Drake's radio show, Lynn's spies heard him endorse Huckabee on the radio (www.crusaderadio.com) and observed the same in an August 11 press release. Lynn's AUSCS complained in a written note to the IRS on August 14, 2007 which resulted in harassment of Drake by the IRS with a letter on February 5, 2008 notifying Drake that his First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park was being investigated. Pastor Drake then called for imprecatory prayers from fellow Christians: viz., that the Almighty would bring judgment upon his (and "His," presumably in the opinion or Rev. Drake and Christian co-workers and sympathizers) enemies by email on February 14. Lynn is outraged, indignant, horrified, and fashionably aghast. . . . Lynn was ordained by the apostate United Church of Christ and was a lawyer with the ACLU before taking over the reigns of the AUSCS in 1993. He has been a busy little bee ever since, always looking for signs of Christianity in the public square to oppose. And while focusing his attention on what has come to be known as churches of the "Christian Right," he takes no notice of, say, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson whose flagrant religious politicking for the Left he does not find objectionable. . . . And, pursuing a course outside the apparent boundary of his organization's stated purpose, he has been a champion of pornography (in the name of freedom). Such is the estimation of attorney Benjamin Bull with the Alliance Defense Fund who says, "Barry Lynn, for over 20 years, has been the mouthpiece for the pornography industry, arguing that all pornography -- including child pornography -- is protected by the First Amendment and that the government can do nothing to stop distribution of child pornography"[i] . . . His resume includes his attempt to enlist the IRS to abuse (the decedent) Jerry Falwell for speaking out against political leaders and their efforts to advance sodomy and abortion in the land. And he told Falwell that he wants eventually to have the motto, "In God We Trust," stricken from our money.[ii]
Judge stops Ky. county from displaying Ten Commandments By Brett Barrouquere, Associated Press Writer 03-31-08 -- A federal judge has permanently barred a Kentucky county from using the Ten Commandments as part of a "Foundations of American Law and Government" display. . . . U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley said the Grayson County display has the "effect of endorsing religion." McKinley's ruling upholds a preliminary injunction issued in 2002 that resulted in county officials taking down the Ten Commandments, but leaving the frame on display. . . . No public money was used to set up the display in the county courthouse in Leitchfield, about 75 miles southwest of Louisville. . . . The Rev. Chester Shartzer put up the display, without a public ceremony or public prayer. Two Grayson County residents and the American Civil Liberties Union sued in 2001, claiming the intent of the display was religious and therefore unconstitutional. . . . The display originally included the full text of the Mayflower Compact, the full text of the Declaration of Independence, the Ten Commandments, the full text of the Magna Carta, the Star Spangled Banner, the National Motto together with the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights, a picture of Lady Justice together with an explanation of the significance of each of the documents. . . . McKinley found that the intent of the display was religious, not educational, in part because it came after the county failed to put up only a Ten Commandments display and Grayson County Fiscal Court members discussed what to put with the Ten Commandments to avoid objections from the ACLU.
Court challenged to allow Christians right to pray, too Appeal seeks to overturn decision eliminating 'Jesus'
03-12-08 -- A court hearing is coming in which the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be asked to restore to Christians the rights that political correctness in the United States today grants other religions, including the right to pray to their God. . . . The case involves Rev. Hashmel Turner and the city of Fredericksburg, Va., and is being handled by the constitutional experts at The Rutherford Institute. . . . Turner, a member of the city council in Fredericksburg, was part of a rotation of council members who would take turns bringing a prayer at the council meetings, and he ended his prayers "in Jesus name." . . . That offended a listener, who promptly brought several heavyweight activist groups into the picture with their threat of a lawsuit if the elected Christian council member wasn't censored, so the city adopted a policy requiring "nondenominational" prayers, effectively eliminating any reference to "Jesus." . . . John Whitehead, the founder and chief of The Rutherford Institute, told WND it's an issue of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, burdened with the politically correct atmosphere in the United States that appears to endorse or at least allow any sort of religious acknowledgement, such as the University of Michigan building footbaths for Muslims, but allows no similar acknowledgement of Christianity.
"Our Guardian Angel:"
03-10-08 -- Michael DePrimo was a frustrated, 40-year-old real estate lawyer in Hamden in the mid-1990s when he found his legal calling 1,200 miles away in Tupelo, Miss. . . . What he discovered on the edge of the Delta was his passion for civil rights law. Despite no experience in litigation, he jump |
.
. . "We feel very strongly that this shouldn't have happened," Esman
said. "It's a shame that it had to come to this." . . . The ACLU
filed the lawsuit after court officials refused the organization's
request to remove the portrait and lettering underneath that says,
"To know peace, obey these laws." A week before Lemelle heard
arguments in the case in September, court officials expanded the
display to include other "notable law-givers," replacing the Jesus
portrait with a copy of the Constitution in the center position and
moving the portrait to the end of the wall. 
