|
|
|
|
|
Religious News & Views 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
Religious News & Views 2008 |
Religious Persecution in America
|
Religious News & Views from 2007 Religious News & Views from 2006 Religious News & Views 2008 Click headline for full story December 2008
Atheists Sue Chief Justice Over Inaugural Oath Tony Mauro, Legal Times 12-31-08 -- The oath of office that presidents take on Inauguration Day is right there in the U.S. Constitution -- at the end of Article II, Section 1. Take a look, and you will see that the oath does not include the words "so help me God" at the end, though presidents and the chief justices who swear them in have apparently added the words in every inauguration since 1933. Some historians say George Washington used the same words in the first inaugural, but others dispute that, and in any case the practice did not become common until the inaugurations of Franklin Roosevelt. . . . California atheist Michael Newdow -- famed for challenging the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- has gone to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking an injunction to prevent Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., as well as the congressional sponsors of the Jan. 20 inaugural and several other defendants, from inserting the words "so help me God" into the oath.
The Separation of Church and State - Reloaded by Christopher Merola 12-29-08 -- In my last article with Townhall, I wrote about the misuse of the phrase, “separation of church and state.” The origin of that phrase’s misuse begins with a horribly decided Supreme Court case in 1947. . . . In Everson vs. Board of Education, FDR appointee Hugo Black, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, reinterpreted the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. He took completely out of context a phrase used by President Thomas Jefferson, “separation of church and state,” found in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Justice Black limited the religious liberty of all Americans by basing his decision on Jefferson’s letter. . . .Yet, Jefferson’s letter is not Constitutional law. Jefferson was not even in the USA at the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written. Jefferson’s phrase, “separation of church and state” is not even found in the Constitution. That did not matter to Justice Black and his other FDR appointed colleagues. They used Jefferson’s letter to justify stifling the free expression of religion in public. . . . In 1984, the Supreme Court clarified what Jefferson meant in his letter. In Lynch vs. Donnelly the court said that the phrase, “separation of church and state,” is nothing more than the opinion of Thomas Jefferson. They called Jefferson’s use of that phrase a “euphemism,” not Constitutional law.
Voted for Prop 8? You're fired By Drew Zahn, © 2008 WorldNetDaily 12-29-08 -- Protests following the passage of California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, made news headlines, but the Pacific Justice Institute reports a growing number of cases where those opposed to the ballot measure have taken out their anger more quietly: by harassing – and even firing – employees who voted for it. . . . PJI, a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in religious freedom, claims to be representing a San Francisco woman who was fired for voting for Proposition 8, but whose name remains confidential to protect her privacy and legal case. . . . "Californians have been shocked by the aggressiveness of radical homosexual activists who have ousted several individuals from their jobs and livelihoods based solely on their support for traditional marriage," states Brad Dacus, president of PJI, on the group's website. "These tactics of fear and intimidation in retaliation for supporting a lawful ballot measure are completely unacceptable." . . . PJI also claims to be advising several others seeking settlements after they too were fired for supporting Proposition 8. . . . "Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated case," asserts a recent PJI statement.
Firefighters ordered into 'gay' parade back in court By Bob Unruh, © 2008 WorldNetDaily Editor's Note: WARNING – Some content in this article is graphic.
12-29-08 -- Four San Diego firefighters who claim they suffered sexual harassment when they were ordered by the city to participate in an obscenity-laden "gay" pride parade in 2007 are going to trial for a second time, and their attorney says this time he'll seek to introduce photographic evidence of the illegal public sex at the event. . . . The firefighters are John Ghiotto, Chad Allison, Jason Hewitt and Alexander Kane and they filed a complaint after being ordered to participate in the July 21, 2007, parade promoting homosexuality and explicit sex. . . . WND reported earlier when attorney Charles LiMandri, who also serves as the West Coast director for the Thomas More Law Center, launched the legal action against the city of San Diego. . . . "These men were sexually harassed in clear violation of San Diego's sexual harassment code," LiMandri said. "Further, the California Constitution's freedom of speech provision prohibits compelled speech. What the firefighters were ordered to do was endorse what goes on at this parade through their participation in it." . . . As WND reported, in July 2007 the firefighters, all Christians, were ordered to participate in uniform on their city fire engine in San Diego's annual "Gay Pride" parade. . . . On a blog for a defense fund assembled for the firefighters, LiMandri said eight of the 12 jurors in the first trial this past fall agreed that the case documented sexual harassment, but that was one short of the necessary nine jurors. . . . "The city of San Diego subjected these firefighters to sexual harassment rather than take reasonable steps to prevent it as the law requires," he said. "When these four firefighters requested to be excused from participating in the 2007 San Diego Gay Pride Parade, their request was denied by their superiors."
The Bible under onslaught of attacks © 2008 WorldNetDaily 12-28-08 -- In case you haven't noticed, we're living in a very strange time. . . . It's a time when evil is celebrated as good, and good is condemned as evil, as predicted by the prophet Isaiah. . . . Even the Holy Bible is under attack as never before. Just recently, Newsweek magazine featured a cover story suggesting the Bible has no problem with same-sex marriage, sparking Bible defenders to fire back. . . . "Perhaps part of the reason for such lunacy is that many people are simply unaware of what's actually included in the Bible," says Joe Kovacs, author of "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told." . . . "Had Newsweek been completely honest, it would have stated the Bible is consistently against homosexuality. The Good Book not only states same-sex relations are an abomination in the Book of Leviticus – verses which Newsweek calls 'throwaway lines' – it addresses the subject in numerous places in both the Old and New Testament."
Judge should apologize in head covering incident By Abed A. Ayoub, From News Services 12-26-08 -- A Douglasville woman was jailed recently for refusing to remove her hijab, the traditional Muslim head covering, in court. This calls into question whether constitutional rights ceased to exist in the Douglasville municipal courtroom of Judge Keith Rollins. . . . The hijab is worn by millions of Muslim women in accordance with their belief in Islam. Some choose to wear a hijab, a symbol of modesty, while others do not. There are many variations of the hijab; some women cover only their hair while others cover everything but their eyes, a style commonly seen in Muslim countries such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. . . . In America, a majority of Muslim women who choose to wear a hijab cover only their hair, leaving the face visible for identification, as was the case with the woman sent to jail by Rollins.
Attorneys of conviction face obstacle
12-22-08 -- Could lawyers be thrown out of the profession based on their religious conviction against homosexuality? . . . The State Bar of Arizona is considering whether to require new attorneys to swear they will not let their views on sexual orientation get in the way of providing legal services. Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's Law School, is concerned. . . . "I believe that this is a major threat to the practice of law," he contends. "This is an attempt to literally license those out of business and to revoke the license of those who, in fact, have traditional moral values."
Culture clash: Diversity vs. security rules
12-21-08 -- Lisa Valentine shed her Baptist beliefs 11 years ago and adopted a faith she felt wholly served her: Islam. . . . She was no longer Lisa, but Miedah. She studied the Quran and donned a head covering, or hijab, because Islam mandates modesty for women. . . . She had not uncovered her head in a public place, in front of men she did not know —- until Tuesday, when she was taken to jail and forced to take off the pants, blouse and printed green and beige scarf she was wearing in exchange for a prison jumpsuit. . . . Douglasville Municipal Court Judge Keith Rollins had held Valentine in contempt of court after she refused to remove her scarf outside his courtroom, then uttered an expletive. . . . The incident attracted the attention of civil liberties groups and reignited debate on religious rights vs. security, an issue that took center stage after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. . . . Many followers of several religions wear head coverings, including Islam, Sikhism and Judaism.
CAIR Seeks Sanctions Against Anti-Hijab Judge in Georgia PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ MarketWatch 12-17-08 -- State attorney general asked to protect religious, legal rights . . . A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker to bring sanctions against a judge in that state who has repeatedly barred Muslim women wearing religiously-mandated headscarves, or hijabs, from entering his courtroom. . . . Yesterday, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reported that a Muslim woman was jailed and then released following a dispute over whether she could enter the judge's courtroom in Douglasville, Ga., while wearing her hijab. In the past year, other Muslim women have either been jailed under similar circumstances or barred from that judge's court.
Judge orders S.C. to stop making 'I Believe' license plates
12-12-08 -- A federal judge on Thursday temporarily stopped the state from making and issuing "I Believe" religious license plates, granting a request from a group that had argued the plates showed an unconstitutional preference for Christianity. . . . U.S. District Court Judge Cameron McGowan Currie issued the preliminary injuction after finding that the statute creating the plate violated the constitutional establishment clause forbidding government from establishing a religion. . . . The license plate, approved by the Legislature, contains a stained glass emblem with a cross on it and the words "I Believe" on top. No plates have been distributed, though hundreds have been ordered. . . . "I am extremely disappointed in the court’s ruling, and feel the ‘I Believe’ license tag is completely constitutional," state Attorney General Henry McMaster said. "I will strongly urge and recommend that the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Corrections immediately appeal this decision to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals."
Judge Throws Out Defamation Claim by 12-11-08 -- Michael Newdow, who gained national attention for his near successful efforts to have the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court on technical grounds, has suffered another court loss. This time a California state court dismissed Newdow’s defamation action against Reverend Austin Miles. . . . Newdow’s defamation lawsuit was based on an article Reverend Miles wrote, opining that Newdow had lied to the court by claiming his daughter was forced to recite the words “under God,” contained within the Pledge of Allegiance, at school. Reverend Miles noted that Newdow’s daughter was actually a Christian who willingly said the Pledge. . . . In June 2004, Newdow had convinced the initial judge hearing this case to enter a default judgment in the amount of $1 million against Reverend Miles — who didn’t even know he had been sued. After learning of the massive judgment, Reverend Miles contacted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Law Center persuaded the Court to set aside the default judgment and allow the case to proceed to trial. Attorney Mark A. Thiel, of Stockton, California, assisted the Law Center as local counsel. Gay Marriage & Newsweek's Hail Mary
12-11-08 -- What struck me reading Newsweek's unusual cover story -- "the Religious Case for Gay Marriage" -- is not what it says about gay rights but what it says about the economics of newsmagazines. . . . I worked at Newsweek as National Correspondent in the 1980s and 1990s, and even back then, the newsmags were in an identity crisis. I laughed out loud when I read in today's Wall Street Journal that Newsweek honchos are considering making it more like the Economist because I remember when that idea was (repeatedly) suggested to top brass in the 1980s they'd invariably respond with something like, "What, you mean have 100,000 readers?") . . . The problem back then was that the traditional newsmagazine function of summarizing and analyzing the week's events had long since been taken over by newspapers (which were in search of their own rationale, as people turned to local TV for the daily news). The internet has only exacerbated the newsmagazines' quandary. . . . Back then, there was much discussion about the newsmags solving the problem by having "more edge." But we were never willing to go all the way. We wanted edge -- an undefined sense of non-newspaperiness -- without out being one sided or choosing a team in the culture wars. So we often substituted "attitude" for opinion, which sometimes meant more ironic detachment and an ideology of light contempt for American leadership in general. It was an awkward adolescent period. . . . It looks like Newsweek, in the face of an economic disaster, has decided to do the full monty, becoming an out-and-out opinion-oriented magazine. Newsweek accused of 'journalistic malpractice'
12-10-08 --A conservative media analyst says a Newsweek cover story suggesting that the Bible condones same-sex "marriage" is evidence the publication is a "fully owned subsidiary of the gay rights movement." . . . The article by Newsweek's religion editor Lisa Miller contends that "Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be [civilly and religiously] married -- and a number of excellent reasons why they should." The story declares that "religious objections to gay marriage are not rooted in the Bible at all...but in custom and tradition." . . . Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute, believes there is ample evidence of media bias on the marriage issue, but calls this example one of the worst he has seen. Knight says Newsweek published a "cartoon version of Scripture that is a gay activist's dream."
Newsweek Comes Out of the Closet The cover story in this week’s Newsweek, which makes “the religious case for gay marriage,” has come under fire from a large swath of the religious community. Newsweek’s own blog has been keeping track of the controversy, with religious heavyweights such as Albert Mohler, Ralph Reed, and Richard Land criticizing the article. The Politico devoted an entire article to cataloging the backlash, The Weekly Standard called it a “dire mess,” and countless blogs commented unfavorably. (Not to mention that the piece was not popular in the Hemingway household.) . . . While there is certainly a religious debate to be had over the validity of gay marriage, most of the criticism of the article sidestepped the main issue to comment on how the author, religion reporter Lisa Miller, wrote the article. Aside from making numerous basic factual errors, the author insisted — before the end of the first paragraph — that biblical views of marriage are déclassé: “Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple — who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love — turn to the Bible as a how-to script?” Newsweek draws fire on gay marriage 12-8-08 -- Leading social conservatives blasted Newsweek for its current cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," which they said misinterprets both biblical scripture and their own political movement. . . . “It doesn’t surprise me. Newsweek has been so far in the tank on the homosexual issue, for so long, they need scuba gear and breathing apparatus,” said Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “I don’t think it’s going to change the minds of anyone who takes biblical teachings seriously.” . . . Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council, agreed, calling Newsweek’s cover story “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity.” . . . “I hardly think that Newsweek is a credible venue for theological discussion,” said Perkins. “I mean, I thought it was just full of holes.” . . . In a note at the front of the magazine this week, editor Jon Meacham predicted a backlash and struck a preemptively defiant note.
12-6-08 -- Just in time for the Christmas season, Washington State Gov. Christine Gregoire has insulted Christians all over the world. Inside the state Capitol building in Olympia there is a traditional holiday display featuring a tree and the Nativity scene; perfectly appropriate since the federal and state Christmas holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. . . . But this year Gregoire decided to add another item to the display. Standing alongside the baby Jesus is a giant placard designed by atheists that reads: "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." . . . You read that correctly. The governor of Washington State has permitted an attack on religion to be displayed in her office building as part of a Christmas presentation. . . . Even the producers of "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected this script as being too far-fetched. Gregoire's behavior is offensive, insulting to all people of faith and totally incomprehensible. . . . Unless you know what's going on in Washington State. Catholic groups fear abortion rights bill But it's unclear if the Freedom of Choice Act imperils a doctor's right not to perform the procedure.
12-5-08 -- First on the Obama administration's to-do list: a stimulus package, bailouts, and ... abortion? Given the imperatives of the economic crisis, picking an abortion fight early on would seem highly unlikely. . . . But the Roman Catholic Church is coordinating a national postcard campaign next month to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Abortion opponents fear the new Democratic majority in Washington could succeed in passing the decades-old bill and Barack Obama would make good on what he told Planned Parenthood in July: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." . . . The bill could wipe out federal and state restrictions on abortion such as parental notification and informed consent laws. Some say FOCA is so broad it would also imperil "conscience clauses" that protect hospitals and doctors who refuse to perform abortions because of their convictions. That's led some Catholic leaders to threaten to close their hospitals if FOCA forced them to provide abortions. . . . Rhetoric aside, it's not certain that FOCA will move in Congress, much less get passed in its current form. Scholars are divided on whether the current bill actually jeopardizes conscience clauses – though they agree it is too vague.
Atheists sue to take God out of state's terrorism law
12-2-08 -- An atheists-rights group is suing the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security because state law requires the agency to stress "dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth." . . . American Atheists of Parsippany, N.J., and 10 non-religious Kentuckians are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, set to be filed Tuesday in Franklin Circuit Court. . . . Edwin Kagin, a Boone County lawyer and the national legal director of American Atheists, said he was appalled to read in the Herald-Leader last week that state law establishes praising God — and installing a plaque in God's honor — as the first duty of the Homeland Security Office. . . . The state and federal constitutions both prohibit government from getting involved in religion, Kagin said Monday.
Judge allows charges in prayer death case
12-2-08 -- A judge Monday refused to dismiss reckless homicide charges against parents accused of praying instead of seeking a doctor’s care as their 11-year-old daughter died of untreated diabetes. . . . Marathon County Circuit Judge Vincent Howard rejected arguments that prosecuting Dale and Leilani Neumann violated their constitutional rights to freedom of religion and due process. . . . "The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct," Howard wrote in a 20-page decision. . . . Parents have a legal obligation in Wisconsin to project their children, care for them in sickness and do whatever may be necessary for their "care, maintenance and preservation, including medical attendance if necessary," the judge said. . . . The sole issue for a jury to decide is whether the parents reasonably knew that refusing to rush the girl to a doctor threatened her with death, Howard wrote.
Miami judge overturns Florida homosexual adoption ban Ruling decries Baptist minister’s views
12-4-08 -- A state judge declared unconstitutional a 31-year-old Florida law banning homosexuals from adopting children in a Nov. 25 ruling that the Attorney General’s office has given notice it will appeal. . . . Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled the law violates equal protection rights of homosexuals under Florida’s constitution. In the 53-page ruling, Lederman also found the law banning homosexual adoptions “defeats a child’s right to permanency as provided by federal and state law.” . . . The decision authorizes Martin Gill, a 47-year-old flight attendant from Miami, to adopt 4- and 8-year-old siblings for whom he has been offering foster care for almost four years. . . . Pro-family leaders discounted the significance of the case and predicted the ruling would be overturned on appeal. . . . “In the short term, this ruling by an activist judge is a tempest in a teapot. In the long-term it will be overturned on appeal,” said Mat Staver, founder of Orlando-based Liberty Counsel. . . . John Stemberger, an Orlando attorney who leads Florida Family Policy Counsel, said the ruling was an example of “classic judicial activism” and illustrates the importance of the approval earlier this month of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment placing the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution. . . . “Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child,” said Stemberger, who led the effort to pass the marriage amendment in Florida. “What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window.” . . . Stemberger added: “The studies are clear that children always do better with a married mother and a father. There are an enormous number of married couples trying to adopt. Some are even going overseas to adopt, and these children can easily be placed in families with a mom and a dad.”
Atheists sue to take God out of state's terrorism law
12-2-08 -- An atheists-rights group is suing the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security because state law requires the agency to stress "dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth." . . . American Atheists of Parsippany, N.J., and 10 non-religious Kentuckians are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, set to be filed Tuesday in Franklin Circuit Court. . . . Edwin Kagin, a Boone County lawyer and the national legal director of American Atheists, said he was appalled to read in the Herald-Leader last week that state law establishes praising God — and installing a plaque in God's honor — as the first duty of the Homeland Security Office. . . . The state and federal constitutions both prohibit government from getting involved in religion, Kagin said Monday.
Judge allows charges in prayer death case
12-2-08 -- A judge Monday refused to dismiss reckless homicide charges against parents accused of praying instead of seeking a doctor’s care as their 11-year-old daughter died of untreated diabetes. . . . Marathon County Circuit Judge Vincent Howard rejected arguments that prosecuting Dale and Leilani Neumann violated their constitutional rights to freedom of religion and due process. . . . "The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct," Howard wrote in a 20-page decision. . . . Parents have a legal obligation in Wisconsin to project their children, care for them in sickness and do whatever may be necessary for their "care, maintenance and preservation, including medical attendance if necessary," the judge said. . . . The sole issue for a jury to decide is whether the parents reasonably knew that refusing to rush the girl to a doctor threatened her with death, Howard wrote.
November 2008
Christian Citizens Against Corruption A Citizens Educational Watchdog Group
Tennessee is one of the most
politically corrupt states in the nation according Christian Citizens against Corruption took form in Monroe County, Tennessee, after citizens learned that local officials were involved in the abduction and torture of a Christian missionary in their community (see details). After this event took place in 2006, citizens discovered that organized crime had taken over their communities, influencing local officials, police, attorneys, Judges and many court decisions. Greed, money, illegal drugs and perversion appeared to be the motivation. Tennessee corruption in the executive branch. Articile 1, Articile 2 and Articile 3. Federal sting operations like “Operation Tennessee Waltz" caught just a few of the corrupt state officials, while other officials were turned in by citizens; it was just the tip of the iceberg! Since forming, Christian Citizens against Corruption has been making a difference in many communities by holding public officials accountable to their oath to office and to the communities that they serve as public servants. The CCC encourages every Christian to stand firm in truth and righteousness when addressing corruption. Whether it’s the removal of historical documents from your court house like the Ten Commandments, or public officials having self-serving agendas that directly oppose ethical and moral Christian values, or the misconduct of public officials in office, it is the responsibility of every citizen to hold these public officials accountable for their actions. Citizens are compelled under law when they have knowledge that a crime has been or is being committed, to report that crime to the proper public officials. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke,1729-1797). ####
Have a resource or encouraging story you would like to share?
11-21-08 -- Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a Christian-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable "right" to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh? . . . New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks -- heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide. "Men seeking men" has now been enshrined with "I have a dream" as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully. . . . Neil Warren, eHarmony's founder, is a gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A "Focus on the Family" author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages healthy, lasting unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths or no faith at all. . . . Don't like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Internet that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it.
Sparks fly as 'gay' activist mob swarms Christians
(Warning: Video may contain offensive language) 11-17-08 -- Hundreds of homosexual activists rushed out of bars and swarmed a group of Christians who were singing songs in San Francisco's Castro District – and some even threatened to kill the worshippers. . . . A group of Christians had been singing and praying in the "gay" district for several days, but they never expected an angry mob would run them out. However, that's what happened Friday night. . . . One woman who was attacked told her story with Pastor Lou Engle at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City. She said the group's fellowship had been peaceful for several nights before the riot. . . . "People would come stand with us and join us," she said. "We got to pray for some people." . . . But then angry men began yelling profanities and warning the Christians to leave the district. . . . One asked, "Why are you here?" . . . The leader of the group said, "We're here to worship God, and we're here because we love you." . . . A group of men approached the Christians and covered them with a large cloth, backing them into a corner. Then the angry mob began swearing and growing larger. The bars began emptying out, and a crowd completely surrounded the Christians. . . . The worship group began singing "Amazing Grace," while an estimated 500 "gay" advocates sang, "We Shall Overcome."
I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag
11-17-08 -- Vermont is at it again. . . . This time, residents of the Town of Woodbury - approximately 700 adults - are quarreling over 'how and where' students at the local Elementary School should recite the Pledge of Allegiance. . . . First some background, followed by some legal history, en-route to what may be the underlying story. . . . It seems that "No one's sure when daily recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance fell by the wayside" at Woodbury's 19th-century schoolhouse, which has 55 students in four classrooms covering grades K-6. . . . In September, parent Ted Tedesco, took the initiative and "... began circulating petitions calling for its return as a daily practice". Officials agreed to resume the daily pledge, but "not in the classroom". Supporters of the Pledge say the classroom is the place for it; but school officials would not accept parental input and choice in the matter. . . . Beginning last week, "a sixth grade student was assigned to go around to the four classrooms before classes started, gathering up anyone who wanted to say it and then walking them up creaky wooden steps to a second-floor gymnasium, where he led them in the pledge". Focus puts retailers on a naughty and nice list for Christmas
11-14-08 -- Focus on the Family wants shoppers to know which retailers are naughty and which ones are nice - at least when it comes to holiday lingo. . . . On Thursday the Colorado Springs-based ministry's political action arm launched its second-annual holiday campaign by posting an online shoppers guide with three categories: "Christmas-friendly" retailers, "Christmas-negligent" retailers and "Christmas-offensive" retailers. . . . The "friendly" retailers are so designated because they prominently use "Merry Christmas" and other Christmas-specific references in their catalogs and in-store promotions. Those on the Christmas-offensive list use secular phrases such as "happy holidays" and have "apparently abandoned" the use of the word "Christmas," Focus said. Christmas-negligent companies "marginalize" their message by using "Christmas" in some cases and "holidays" in others. . . . The ministry - which made its determinations based mostly on an examination of retailers' print and online holiday catalogs - encourages shoppers to patronize the Christmas-friendly stores, but does not tell them to avoid the other retailers. Christmas Friendly Shopping Focus Action has prepared a shopping guide of retailers and their efforts to include or exclude "Christmas" in their marketing. Go here to see that shopping guide and to join this important effort: http://www.focuspetitions.com/175/petition.asp?PID=18826820&NID=1
'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban 11-05-08 -- Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches. . . . "Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier. . . . The amendments in all three states essentially limit marriage to one man and one woman. In California, the measure states the only marriages "valid and recognized" in the state are those between one man and one woman. . . . Thirty states now have adopted marriage amendments. However, in California, the vitriol appeared especially high since the state Supreme Court in May created same-sex marriage for homosexuals. Proposition 8 overruled the court decision, readopting the marriage definition California voters adopted in 2000.
11th Circuit rules it unlawful to exclude certain religions from offering prayers to open meetings
11-4-08 -- A federal appeals court held that it was unconstitutional to categorically exclude certain religions from offering prayers to open Georgia commission meetings, but refused to require prayers to eliminate all sectarian references. . . . The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 2-1 decision on Oct. 28 rejected the argument by seven Cobb County, Ga., taxpayers that the Constitution permits only nonsectarian prayers. . . . The Cobb County practice to open Planning Commission sessions with a prayer currently chooses religious leaders from all faiths to offer prayers at the meeting.
October 2008
Court OKs Cobb meeting prayers
10-29-08 -- The federal appeals court in Atlanta on Tuesday upheld Cobb County’s practice of allowing predominantly Christian prayers to open commission meetings. . . . By a 2-1 ruling, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it disagreed with a lawsuit’s contention that the Constitution permits only nonsectarian prayers. . . . Cobb’s practice allows religious leaders of all faiths to offer prayers at meetings, and the prayers do not improperly advance one religion or disparage another, the court said. . . . In 2005, seven Cobb residents filed a federal lawsuit seeking a halt to the practice before board of commissioners’ and planning commission’s meetings. Overtly Christian prayers are an unconstitutional establishment of religion, said the suit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
McDermott Leads Coach's Effort to Get Prayer Case Before Supreme Court
10-24-08 -- Marcus Borden, a decorated football coach at East Brunswick High School in New Jersey, had a long-standing tradition of praying with his team before games. Sometimes, Borden would lead the prayer himself; other times, a player would lead the prayer and Borden would kneel and bow his head with the rest of the team. . . . In 2005, the school district told Borden to stop leading the prayers because of a possible First Amendment violation. Borden obeyed, but continued to kneel and bow his head during the prayers. When the school barred him from doing that, he sued. . . . He won at the federal district level, but the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, overturned the decision. Now, lawyers from three Am Law 100 firms have joined Borden's longtime counsel in trying to bring the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not addressed a major school prayer case since 2000, when it ruled 6-3 that students praying over the loud-speaker before a high school football game violated the Establishment Clause. God Gets Boot Again from Washington by Chuck Norris 10-12-08 -- Flying under the radar and literally under the ground of congressional bailout meetings were closet Capitol Hill discussions about God and Washington. It seems another revision of America's religious history has been under way -- this time at the $621 million, 580,000-square-foot Capitol Visitor Center, which will open in a couple of months. . . . Most news media recently were covering Tina Fey and Congress' foolish financial bailouts; reporter Bob Unruh and WorldNetDaily were virtually alone in exposing this latest divine omission at the U.S. Capitol. This massive and largely underground museum of sorts (about three-quarters the size of the Capitol itself) will have exhibition galleries, theaters, a 550-seat cafeteria, gift shops, etc. But one thing absent is equitable representation of our Christian or religious heritage -- and there are already several corruptions of it. That is why Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and the 107 other members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus recently sent a petition to the Architect of the Capitol. Their letter details and documents some of the incomplete and inaccurate religious content in the Capitol Visitor Center. Some of the 19 omissions and inaccuracies also can be seen on a YouTube posting by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., called "War on God."
No Free Speech Violation Found in School's Hiding of Child's Jesus Image Joel Stashenko, New York Law Journal 10-6-08 -- A public school's decision to fold over a portion of a kindergartner's poster to hide an image of Jesus did not violate the youngster's right to free speech, a federal judge has determined. . . . Antonio Peck's teacher and school principal had "legitimate pedagogical concerns" when deciding to edit the boy's poster for a school display promoting environmental awareness, Northern District of New York Judge Norman A. Mordue ruled in Peck v. Baldwinsville Central School District, 99-cv-1847. . . . Those valid concerns of Antonio's teacher, Susan Weichert, and the principal, Robert Creme, were that parents at the Catherine McNamara Elementary School in Baldwinsville, outside Syracuse, N.Y., would think Weichert was teaching religion if they saw the image of Jesus on Antonio's poster about ways to protect the environment, according to Mordue. September 2008 33 Pastors Flout Tax Law With Political Sermons By Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer 9-29-08 -- Defying a federal law that prohibits U.S. clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, an evangelical Christian minister told his congregation Sunday that voting for Sen. Barack Obama would be evidence of "severe moral schizophrenia." . . . The Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. told worshipers that the Democratic presidential nominee's positions on abortion and gay partnerships exist "in direct opposition to God's truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures." Johnson showed slides contrasting the candidates' views but stopped short of endorsing Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain. . . . Johnson and 32 other pastors across the country set out Sunday to break the rules, hoping to generate a legal battle that will prompt federal courts to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship. . . . The ministers contend they have a constitutional right to advise their worshipers how to vote. As Johnson put it during a break between sermons, "The point that the IRS says you can't do it, I'm saying you're wrong."
August 2008
ACLU attack dogs maul student prayer
8-29-08 -- The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on behalf of two high school students who say they are offended by the school's policy of allowing prayer at voluntary events and holding Christmas concerts at churches. . . . The students, from Pace High School in Pace, Fla., are identified only as Minor I Doe and Minor II Doe in the lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court because they are both under 18. The complaint alleges disclosure of their names would put the students at risk of "social ostracism, economic injury, governmental retaliation … and potential physical harm." . . . Benjamin Stevenson, staff attorney with the ACLU of Florida's Northwest Region office, released an ACLU statement accusing school officials of using governmental positions to promote individual religious beliefs in public school. . . . "Parents, not the public schools, should be responsible for deciding whether their children receive religious education," said Benjamin Stevenson, staff attorney with the ACLU of Florida's Northwest Region office. "Religious freedom is eroded when the government endorses any particular religious viewpoint."
Law firm answers to a higher power Christian focus sets Romero apart in the field
8-25-08 -- Visitors to the offices of Douglas Romero's law firm aren't greeted with framed law degrees on the wall. Instead, there's a plaque that reads "Jesus Christ is Lord," and next to it is a photo of a father and his young son praying at a Promise Keepers rally. . . . Soothing tunes are courtesy of K-LOVE FM-91.1, the Christian broadcast station. . . . And job-seeking attorneys are surprised when Romero pops an interview question that has nothing to do with where they earned their law degrees. . . . "So my question is, 'Tell me, how is your walk with God?' They're shocked. They'd say, 'I thought you'd want to know where I went to law school?' " . . . The Law Office of Douglas Romero - Colorado Christian Defense Counsel has four other lawyers, four paralegals and an investigator who pray that justice is blind and God is not when it comes to defending their clients and causes. . . . "When we're advocating for God, when he's on our side, who could be against us if he's for us?" Romero reasons.
A 6-Ton Sculpture of Jesus' Face -- and a Malpractice Suit
8-22-08 --A legal malpractice lawsuit against Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz stemming from a case involving a 6-ton marble sculpture of Jesus Christ's face may proceed to trial. . . . The Court of Appeals of Tennessee ruled Aug. 15 that the lower court erred when it threw out two of the former client's theories for malpractice and granted a final judgment to the plaintiff on a third theory. The decision remanded the case back to the lower court for trial. . . . The former client is Christus Gardens, a tourist attraction and gift shop in Gatlinburg, Tenn. It sued Baker Donelson for its alleged failure to file an appeal on time in a copyright infringement lawsuit that Christus Gardens was defending. . . . Christus Gardens lost the infringement case brought by the copyright owner of "Miracle Face," a giant sculpture resembling a burial stone that served as the main attraction at Christus Gardens.
Court will press 10 Commandments lawsuit
8-20-08 -- Meeting in special session yesterday morning, McCreary County Fiscal Court voted to continue fighting its legal battle with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky over the public posting of the Ten Commandments. . . . Earlier this month U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer B. Coffman entered a ruling in favor of the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment. The ruling issued August 4 makes permanent the injunction barring the “Foundations of Americana Law and Government,” display which includes the Commandments among other secular documents. . . . The case went all the way to the Supreme Court back in 2005 when the justices upheld the then-temporary injunction, effectively sending the case back to the District Court at London. With the exception of a failed settlement conference, the case has lain practically dormant for over three years.
Calif. Supreme Court: Religion Not a Shield for Discrimination
8-19-08 -- Three months after approving same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court gave gay rights another boost Monday by unanimously ruling that doctors can't invoke religion to refuse treating homosexual patients (pdf). . . . "There's a great diversity of religious beliefs in California, and they're all protected," Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel in the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund's Los Angeles office, said in a prepared statement. "But not to the point where laws are violated and other people are hurt." . . . Coming on the heels of the marriage ruling in May, the opinion continued the California court's tradition of being sensitive to gay issues. In recent years, the justices have approved second-parent adoptions; strengthened non-biological parents' claims to parenthood in same-sex relationships; prevented businesses from discriminating against registered domestic partners; and approved municipal policies against doing business with groups that discriminate against gays. . . . Monday's case began in 2001 when Oceanside, Calif., lesbian Guadalupe Benitez sued Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, who claimed their Christian faith prevented them from providing intrauterine insemination in some circumstances. The doctors, who worked at the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., argued that they couldn't provide fertility treatments to Benitez because she wasn't married, but Benitez said they refused because of her sexual orientation.
Is UC Trying to Secularize Education? University Gets Favorable Ruling
8-13-08 -- With the back-to-school season nearly upon us, let’s shine a light on education & the law. Last week, we told you about the controversy over the Kamehameha schools’ preference for native Hawaiian students. Today, we bring you a ruling from the Central District of California that deals with whether the University of California can constitutionally deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks are deemed inadequate. . . . On Friday, Judge James Otero rejected claims by Calvary Chapel Christian School, five Calvary students, and the Association of Christian Schools International that UC’s policies violate the Constitution’s Free Speech Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. Judge Otero said UC’s review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking. Here’s a story from the San Fran Chron, and here’s Judge Otero’s ruling. “In God We Trust”
Every once in a while, someone proposes that the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from our nation's coinage and paper money. The motivations for removal vary widely, from the atheists to the passionately religious. As a life-long numismatist, I am always startled by the general public's lack of factual knowledge about the motto. Many proponents argue, for example, that the Founding Fathers chose the motto. Actually, that is not true at all. The first Mint Act passed by Congress in 1792 required only that the obverse ("heads" side of the coin) feature a portrait "emblematic of Liberty" (in other words, a female allegorical portrait representing Liberty), the word "Liberty," and the year of mintage; the reverse side was to feature an eagle, the words "United States of America," and "E Pluribus Unum" ("From many, one"). And that's the way American coinage was produced from 1792 through 1863. (America did not produce any paper money until 1863). During the Civil War, American money underwent many changes. Among those changes were the first issues of paper money by the government, and the addition of the motto "In God We Trust" to our coinage. The first American coins to bear the motto were the two-cent pieces (a denomination issued only from 1864 through 1873). The rest of our coins did not begin to bear the motto until 1866 (dimes, not until 1916; cents, not until 1909). The presence of the motto was not universally approved. Most of the disapproval came from people who felt that the mention of God on money was sacrilege, or close to it. An editorial in the Carson Daily Appeal, a newspaper published in Carson City, Nevada, where one of the U.S. Mint's facilities produced coins from 1870 through 1893, stated as follows in the edition of 23 July 1873 with regard to the motto: "Good taste would cause [the motto's] entire obliteration, we think. Consider the baseness to which a coin may be put at the hands of godless people, and then the somewhat intrusive incongruity of this pious label becomes apparent." The Carson City editor no doubt was thinking of gold coins and silver dollars being pushed across bars to buy whiskey, and being pressed into the palms of bordello madams. President Theodore Roosevelt, a religious man, had the same inclinations. A true Renaissance man, he commissioned the redesign of America's gold coins in 1907, and hired the premier sculptor of the day, Augustus St. Gaudens, to come up with the new designs. As part of the design change, President Roosevelt ordered that the motto "In God We Trust" be dropped. The President's decision was covered in the New York Times, in an article you can read here entitled: ‘Roosevelt dropped ‘In God We Trust’ : Roosevelt felt that using the motto on coinage "cheapened" it, and was not only irreverent, but "close to sacrilege." He observed that the motto's presence on coinage was the subject of unseemly jokes. Instead, he said, the motto belonged on great public monuments and public buildings, where it would be inspirational. Roosevelt also noted that the presence of the motto was not required by any law, but had merely become a custom. The absence of the motto on the gold coins of 1907, however, caused a public outcry against these "godless" coins. The outcry was by no means unanimous, however, even among church people (see the article cited above for the violent split in New York's biggest Episcopal church over the issue). Congress was spurred to action, however, and enacted a law which, beginning in 1908, required the motto on all U.S. coins. Our paper currency, curiously, lacked the motto until 1956, when the oversight was finally addressed. I would just point out that in our country today, it seems contradictory that on the one hand, children in public schools can neither pray nor see a display of the Ten Commandments, and yet most of our courthouses have the motto "In God We Trust" on the walls of their courtrooms, and, of course, it is there on our money. Seems darn inconsistent to me. ###### Lawrence N. Rogak has been a claims attorney since 1981. As managing attorney of Lawrence N. Rogak LLC, he writes The Rogak Report. The most useful publication in the insurance claims business. Every day, The Rogak Report reviews and analyzes the latest insurance and negligence decisions from the New York courts.
Ten Commandments poster inside courtroom approved
8-11-08 -- A federal judge has rejected a demand from the American Civil Liberties Union that she censor a document posted in an Ohio courtroom titled "Philosophies of Law in Conflict" because the Ten Commandments are included. . . . "It is truly unfortunate that the ACLU apparently has nothing better to do than to file baseless charges against a dedicated public servant like Judge [James] DeWeese," said Francis J. Manion, a senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. . . . "A first-year law student – looking at the facts and law of this case – could have told the ACLU that there never was a legal basis for this ridiculous contempt charge," Manion said. "We're pleased that the [federal] court acted expeditiously in tossing out this latest gambit in the ACLU's ongoing harassment of Judge DeWeese." . . . The conflict began when the ACLU sued DeWeese for posting a copy of the Decalogue in his courtroom, resulting in a judge ordering that the document could not be posted by itself. [more]
An image of DeWeese's commentary
Religious Slurs May Amount to Hostile Workplace, N.J. High Court Says
8-5-08 -- Workers taunted about their religion or ancestry are entitled to the same legal protection as the victims of sex, race and ethnic harassment, the New Jersey Supreme Court said in the case of a police officer whose colleagues called him a "dirty Jew." . . . The unanimous court on July 31 reinstated a verdict against the Haddonfield Police Department and a number of its officers and patrolmen for directing anti-Semitic taunts, harassment and slurs at Patrolman Jason Cutler. . . . A Camden County jury awarded no damages because it found no basis for Cutler's claim that anti-Semitism delayed his promotion to corporal. And, in a ruling that prompted amicus briefs from Jewish groups and the plaintiff's employment bar, an appeals court said the behavior amounted to locker-room antics, "ribbing" and "breaking of chops" and wasn't actionable. . . . The state Supreme Court agreed there were no monetary damages, but it reinstated the harassment finding, adding to its stack of pro-plaintiff rulings in workplace discrimination cases. Jason Cutler v. Theodore Dorn (A-51-07) July 2008
Federal judge says cross can remain on San Diego's Mt. Soledad ACLU says opponents may appeal the decision. The symbol is part of a federally owned war memorial
7-31-08 -- A controversial cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego can stay as part of a federally owned war memorial, a federal judge ruled. . . . "The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns in his decision filed Tuesday. "As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional." . . . An official with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents several of the plaintiffs in the case, including the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, voiced disappointment in the decision. Lawyers for the group had contended that including the cross in a government park violated the principle of the separation of church and state. . . . "If you want to put a cross on your front lawn . . . we will be the first to defend you," said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. "When the government is sponsoring and endorsing the preeminent symbol of one religion, that's when we have a problem." Workers' Religious Freedom vs. Patients' Rights Proposal Would Deny Federal Money if Employees Must Provide Care to Which They Object
7-31-08 -- A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients' rights. . . . The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive. . . . Conservative groups, abortion opponents and some members of Congress are welcoming the initiative as necessary to safeguard doctors, nurses and other health workers who, they say, are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant.
Ban on aid for Christian college students tossed '1st Amendment does not permit government to judge theology classes
7-25-08 -- A federal court has ordered the state of Colorado to stop discriminating against students of a Christian college, a facility that state officials determined provided too much religion. . . . The state for years has provided grants to students of secular institutions as well as students at a Methodist university and a Roman Catholic university, according to yesterday's opinion from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. . . . However, students at Colorado Christian University, a non-denominational evangelical Protestant university, were banned from the grant program after state officials decided the school was too pervasively sectarian. "We find the exclusion unconstitutional for two reasons: The program expressly discriminates among religions without constitutional justification, and its criteria for doing so involves unconstitutionally intrusive scrutiny of religious belief and practice," the opinion said.
Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights Dismisses free-speech case filed by Philadelphia 11
7-18-08 -- A federal appeals court has ruled the First Amendment rights of homosexuals at Philadelphia's taxpayer-funded "Outfest" celebration in 2004 trumped the First Amendment rights of Christians, and has dismissed the civil rights complaint the Philadelphia 11 had filed. . . . "The city has an interest in ensuring that a permit-holder can use the permit for the purpose for which it was obtained," this week's opinion from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. "This interest necessarily includes the right of police officers to prevent counter-protestors from disrupting or interfering with the message of the permit-holder." . . . The decision upheld a lower court's dismissal of the civil action against the city of Philadelphia and its police that had been filed by the Philadelphia 11.
Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church Instructs members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition' © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7-15-08 -- A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion. . . . Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs." . . . It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."
7-11-08 -- Observant Jews have no right under federal law to install small scrolls known as mezuzot outside the doors of their condominiums, a federal appeals court declared yesterday. . . . The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, 2-1, that the condominium association at Shoreline Towers in Chicago did not run afoul of the Fair Housing Act when managers removed the religious items pursuant to a rule barring the placement of signs, shoes, mats, and any other sort of object outside residents' doors. . . . "The hallway rule ... is neutral with respect to religion," Judge Frank Easterbrook, joined by Judge William Bauer, wrote. "It bans photos of family vacations, political placards, for-sale notices, and Chicago Bears pennants."
U.N. scheme to make Christians criminals
7-10-08 -- Dozens of nations dominated by Islam are pressing the United Nations to adopt an anti-"defamation" plan that would make Christians criminals under international law, according to a United States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide. . . . "Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry," the American Center for Law & Justice said yesterday in announcing its petition drive. . . . The discrimination is "wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called 'Combating Defamation of Religions,'" the announcement said. "We must put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith that attempts to criminalize Christianity."
City drops ban on speaking about Jesus 7-3-08 -- Members of "Jews for Jesus" who were ordered not to hand out literature or even speak about Jesus on public property in Oyster Bay, N.Y., have reached a settlement with the city that will provide for them to exercise their First Amendment rights if they choose, according to a law firm. . . . The Alliance Defense Fund today announced it was asking that a lawsuit it had filed over the issue be dismissed because of the settlement reached with city officials. . . . The crackdown happened on July 25, 2006, when group members tried to enter John J. Burns Park to hand out literature and speak to people about their faith.
New Mexico accused of violating 'free exercise' of religion
7-3-08 -- The state of New Mexico is being accused of violating the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of "free exercise" of religion because of a ruling that a Christian husband-and-wife photography team must pay a $6,600 penalty for refusing to shoot pictures at a same-sex "commitment" ceremony. . . . The accusation comes in legal action brought by the Alliance Defense Fund over the penalty announced for Elane Photography. . . . "Christians in the marketplace should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs any more than anyone else should," Jordan Lorence, a senior counsel for the organization, said. "The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience. The commission's decision demonstrates stunning disregard for our client's First Amendment rights."
Legislator: Law allows banishment of Bible
7-1-08 -- A lawmaker in Colorado who challenged the authors of SB200, a new law that bans discrimination based on the "perception" of gender, during House debate says it was written to give a wide open door to anyone who wants to banish Christian beliefs or the Bible. . . . "This is so loaded. It's written in an open-ended fashion that anybody can take just about any part of it and grow it into a huge monstrosity," state Rep. Kevin Lundberg told WND today. "It was written with intentional [vagueness]." . . . He spoke with WND after a news conference at which a number of groups and organizations announced plans to challenge the law. Among those promising to dispute the new limitations on speech and actions was Liberty Counsel, which is reviewing the situation now in preparation for a legal challenge. . . . "Section 8 of Senate Bill 200 is a wide open door for any judge to censor anything that condemns homosexuality, including Scripture," Lundberg said at the news conference. Section 8 is headlined, "Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden."
June 2008
Judge bans Bible from school, appeal filed
6-28-08 -- A brief has been filed in a federal appeals court asking the justices to overturn a judge who ordered a school district specifically to ban the Bible in its policy regarding the distribution of literature to students. . . . WND reported just a week ago when a federal judge declared unconstitutional a Florida law that was used to prevent Gideons from handing out Bibles to students on public property near schools. . . . Now comes another dispute, this one in Missouri and pursued by Liberty Counsel in its request to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. It wants the court to overturn a district judge's ruling that could be used to allow distribution of the Quran, but specifically censors the Bible under the district's open forum policy that is content-neutral. . . . The case comes out of a policy adopted by the school board in the South Iron School District in Iron County, Mo. The district has had a long-standing open access policy "that allows many community groups to present literature and information to students at its schools, outside the classroom during non-instructional time." In fact, officials noted, no one requesting permission ever had been refused.
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.
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]
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 jumped headlong into an opportunity to advocate for the Center for Law and Policy, the legal arm of the American Family Association, a Tupelo-based conservative Christian ministry. . . . "There was only one course that lit a fire under me in law school, and that was Constitution Law," said DePrimo, who was a member of the charter graduating class at Regent University Law School in Virginia Beach in 1989. "By the time I was out of law school for five or six years, I had no expectation" of practicing civil rights law.
Judge Rules that God is Still Welcome in Millersville, Tenn.
Court Holds City Cannot Deny Ministry's Rights through Legal
Maneuverings 03-10-08 -- Score one for the little guy. And the Big Guy. . . . The United States District Court for Middle Tennessee ruled that the city of Millersville, Tenn. violated the constitutional rights of Layman Lessons when it threatened application of a "pending zoning ordinance" as a means of blocking the ministry's use of a commercially zoned property. . . . "The Court rejected the city's contention that, as long as it had a pending ordinance that addressed Layman Lessons' intended use of this property, it could indefinitely delay acting on the ministry's application," said Larry Crain, a senior attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and lead attorney for the plaintiff. "In essence, the court ruled that 'justice delayed is justice denied.'" . . . Problems arose for Layman Lessons, a Christian ministry formed to aid the homeless and destitute, when it first applied for a use permit for a commercially zoned property in Millersville, a town 17 miles north of Nashville. Shortly after the ministry applied for a permit the city planner, James Lech, issued a letter rejecting the application due to a then-pending ordinance that, if passed, would have limited all religious and non-profit uses on any commercial lot in the city. City Manager Robert Mobley supported Mr. Lech's recommendation. The effect of these actions was to place Layman Lessons' application on indefinite hold. . .. Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr. concluded that through these maneuverings the city denied Layman Lessons its constitutional rights in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Christians ordered to pay big bucks – for praying! Lawyer plans appeal of convictions for disorderly conduct at 'gay' fest
03-03-08 -- Lawyers for a team of Christians convicted of disorderly conduct for praying at a "gay" fest in a public park in Elmira, N.Y., are promising an appeal of the verdict that left them with $100 fines. . . . Joel Oster, of the Alliance Defense Fund, said an appeal will be filed in Chemung County court for Julian and Gloria Raven, Maurice Kienenberger and Walter Quick, all of Elmira, who were ordered to pay $95 apiece in court costs in addition to the $100 fines. . . . Oster told the Star-Gazette newspaper that the police in the United States simply are not supposed to arrest people if someone else may be upset by their message. . . . The Supreme Court has ruled in cases involving "sit-in" protests, he said, that authorities cannot arrest blacks just because they were making white people angry. . . . "The police have a duty to protect the speaker," he told the court, according to the Star-Gazette. . . . "Choosing to exercise your First Amendment rights in a public place is not a crime," Oster said just before going into the trial. . . . At issue is the arrest of seven Christians at a "gay pride" event in Wisner Park in Elmira in 2007. Julian and Gloria Raven and several others entered the park to pray silently for the participants of the event celebrating homosexual behavior. Charges against three later were dropped, and only the four went to trial. . . . Officials with the ADF noted that the materials advertising the event said everyone was invited and it was open to the public. "The group did not draw a disorderly response from event participants," the ADF said. February 2008
02-08-08 -- Oh, ye of little faith — and here we are speaking of those who doubt that some day a solution will be found to the problem of school choice — we say behold what is happening among the judges who ride the 9th circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. There, our Josh Gerstein reports from the Coast, three judges are hearing a case that could force the Internal Revenue Service to explain why it has secretly allowed members of the Church of Scientology to take a tax deduction for religious education. . . . The case was brought by a Jewish couple, Michael and Marla Sklar, who had taken deductions for part of the costs of the tuition for the education of their children for afterschool classes in Judaism. They are seeking to view an agreement the Internal Revenue Service reached with the Church of Scientology in 1993 as part of a settlement in a long-running dispute. The church, Mr. Gerstein reports, paid $12.5 million, while the IRS, as Mr. Gerstein characterizes it in his story on page one, "agreed to drop arguments that Scientology was not a bona fide religion." And the IRS agreed to allow Scientologists to deduct at least 80% of fees paid for "religious training and services."
January 2008
01-31-08 -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ~1st Amendment to the US Constitution Look for the period. In our English language a period is very significant. It marks the end of a thought. Go back and look for the period. The entire 1st Amendment is one compound sentence; it is not a collection of un-related thoughts. . . . There area at least three very clear, declarative statements in the 1st Amendment, each one referring to what “Congress” cannot do. In a nutshell, Congress can’t: Make any laws placing any regulation or restrictions on religion. Notice: Neither church nor state is mentioned anywhere in the amendment. Make any laws restricting freedom of speech or the press. Make any laws prohibiting any type of peaceable assembly or appeal to our leaders. Have you noticed that the only one of those “rights” listed above that has not been tampered with is the “freedom of the press?” Judges are constantly restricting individuals' speech, religion expression, and places where one can protest; yet they do nothing to put restrictions on the media. Ever wonder why that is? Or, more likely, if you are like most Americans you never really thought about it. Well…..it is time to think about it.
'Choose Life' license plate ruled free speech
01-29-08 – An Arizona anti-abortion group's right of free speech was violated when the state refused to issue specialty license plates with the message "Choose Life," a federal appeals court ruled Monday. . . . Reversing a judge's decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Arizona's License Plate Commission had approved less-controversial plates for other nonprofit organizations, such as associations of police and firefighters and the Wildlife Conservation Council, before turning down the Arizona Life Coalition. . . . The commission "clearly denied the application based on the nature of the message," Judge Richard Tallman said in the 3-0 ruling. He rejected the commission's argument that it was entitled to control the content of state-issued license plates and said Arizona was attempting to restrict free expression. . . . Opponents of abortion have been trying for years to get states to let them use license plates as mobile billboards for the "Choose Life" motto. Judges' reaction has been mixed.
City sued for arresting pastor on public sidewalk
01-22-08 -- A lawsuit has been filed against the city of Wichita, Kan., and several of its police officers on behalf of a Christian pastor arrested just for being on public property. . . . The civil-rights suit was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, an advocacy organization that defends constitutional rights, on behalf of Mark Holick, pastor of Spirit One Christian Center. . . . Spirit One is the worship center also has been threatened by the Internal Revenue Service with an audit for posting messages on its marquee dealing with the value of human life, based on dozens of Bible references. . . . Holick's arrest happened last summer when a homosexual festival was being held in a public park in Wichita. He went to share his Christian faith on public property, and it took only a little longer than three minutes after his arrival for police officers to arrest him. . . . The trespassing charges later were dropped, but that doesn't solve the issue, according to the ADF. . . . "Exercising your First Amendment rights is not a crime," said Joel Oster, ADF senior legal counsel. "Arresting Christians simply because they choose to exercise those rights in a public place is unconstitutional."
Woman Says She Was Kicked Off Bus for Reading Bible
1-2-08 -- 'This type of discrimination is clearly unconstitutional,' legal expert says. . . . A Fort Worth, Texas, mother of two said she was kicked off of a city bus for reading the Gospel of Matthew to her children on the way to church. . . . Fort Worth Transportation Authority spokeswoman Joan Hunter told KRLD radio that Christine Lutz was being disruptive and was asked to get off the bus. Lutz said that's not what happened. . . . “She (the bus driver) told me to stop reading the Bible, and that’s what I refused," Lutz said. "If she had asked me to quiet down, that would have been a total different story.” . . . Lutz called the transportation office to settle the issue. . . . “The dispatcher actually told me that I am not allowed to read the Bible on the bus," she said. "And I said, ‘Well I guess you forgot what country you live in.’ ” . . . Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, said the government generally cannot stop the reading of the Bible. . . . He said, “In public, on a government sidewalk, in a park, in a street, in a building, on a bus, this type of discrimination is clearly unconstitutional.” An Historic Example Of Judicial Activism: The Cantwell Case |
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
|
 |
“In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making
proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by
persecution.”
"In such a performance
you may lay the foundation of national happiness only in religion, not
by leaving it doubtful " whether morals can exist without it, " but by
asserting that without religion morals are the effects of causes as
purely physical as pleasant breezes and fruitful seasons." |
|
You are visitor number:
Inaugurated on April 1, 2008
Updated: 01/11/2010
.
. . "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. 
