Christ, Christians and Christmas Under Attack In The Courts

[nChrist]

It is true that government cannot make any law respecting establishment of religion but they also cannot act in "prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech". Rev Turner and the council were not making any law but it is a clear fact that this federal court is violating the free exercise and free speech of Rev Turner. These liberal judges that keep ruling against the rights of The People placed in the First Amendment  need to be bounced out of court and placed into jail! It has gone way past being sickening. They need to loose their freedoms for taking away our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

AMEN!

Our Founders would have dealt with these CLOWNS very harshly. They fought a Revolutionary War for Freedom of Religion. The name of JESUS CHRIST was used, honored, Praised, and Worshiped in PUBLIC, and ALL of the children were taught about JESUS CHRIST in public schools. JESUS CHRIST was worshiped in church services held in public buildings, and the people expected their representatives, public servants, and school teachers to be Christians. In fact, there were legal requirements in most states for many years that those holding public office had to be Christians. Those who refused to Honor the NAME of JESUS CHRIST were considered to be heretics, outcasts, and worse. THIS IS WHY THE ACLU AND GROUPS LIKE THEM WOULD LOVE TO ERASE OVER 200 YEARS OF RECORDED HISTORY! Our FOUNDATION was Christianity, JESUS CHRIST, and the HOLY BIBLE - and I love and respect that FOUNDATION! It can't be erased, and IT WON'T BE FORGOTTEN!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Favorite Bible Quotes 120 - Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9
Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
before ordained that we should walk in them.

[Soldier4Christ]

Court: Voters to decide discrimination against churches
'Florida constitution now prevents religious groups from taking part in public programs'

A court has ruled that if a discrimination plan is going to remain in the Florida state constitution, voters will be the ones to decide.

The ruling today comes from Circuit Judge John C. Cooper, who found that voters have a right to decide whether they want to retain those provisions, or whether they want to excise them.

"It's wrong to deny funding for non-religious purposes to non-profit groups or individuals simply because they are religious," said Joe Infranco, a senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund.

Attorneys working with the organization represented five religious charities in the state that had joined in defense of the plan submitted by the state Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, which periodically reviews tax laws.

It proposed two ballot initiatives this November that would repeal a constitutional provision barring individuals and other entities from participating in public programs solely because of their religious nature. A second proposal would amend the state constitution to allow limited state support for private education costs.

The American Civil Liberties Union had sued to prevent voters from being allowed to decide those issues.

"The constitutional provision addressed by Ballot Initiative 7 is the prohibition against the public funding of religious and sectarian institutions in Article 1, section 3. Plaintiffs fail to explain persuasively why Ballot Initiative 7's elimination of this barrier to state budgetary expenditures for religious-affiliated programs, thereby allowing them to be eligible for educational services, public contracting, and procurement matters, is not a matter of the state's budgetary process," the judge wrote.

The ADF represented the Florida Catholic Conference, Mercy Hospital, Friends of Lubavitch Florida, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami and the Association of Christian Schools International in the case.

"Florida reaps great benefit from religious charities that serve the poorest of society," said Florida Catholic Conference Executive Director Michael McCarron. "Florida's constitution should not discriminate against religious groups when it comes to such funding, which is not used for religious purposes and greatly benefits communities."

[Soldier4Christ]

Decision that Christianity 'offensive' is challenged
Freedom of speech exists 'not to enable religious discrimination by government'

A court ruling that school officials legally could determine that a Christmastime Christian message is "offensive" and therefore ban it from an elementary school is being submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the hope the decision will be overturned, according to the Alliance Defense Fund.

"The First Amendment exists to protect private speakers, not to enable religious discrimination by government officials," said Jeff Shafer, senior legal counsel for the ADF. "The court of appeals' unprecedented classification of student religious speech as an 'offense' worthy of censorship should be reversed."

The case began in 2003 when Joel Curry, a fifth-grade student at Handley School in Saginaw, Mich., participated in a classroom project in which students were given guidelines to develop a product and "sell" it during a "Classroom City" event just before Christmas.

His product was a candy cane made from pipe cleaners, and to it he attached the following message:

    The Meaning of the Candy Cane

    Hard candy: Reminds us that Jesus is like a "rock," strong and dependable.

    The color Red: Is for God's love that sent Jesus to give his life for us on the cross.

    The Stripes: Remind us of Jesus' suffering-his crown of thorns, the wounds in his hands and feet; and the cross on which he died.

    Peppermint Flavor: Is like the gift of spices from the wise men.

    White Candy: Stands for Jesus as the holy, sinless Son of God.

    Cane: Is like a staff used by shepherds in caring for sheep. Jesus leads us and watches over us when we Trust him.

School officials determined such a message was "offensive" and allowed Curry to continuing participating in the activity only if he censored the message.

A lawsuit against the school district followed and a short time later, the U.S. Department of Justice expressed its support for Curry's position.

It argued "the boy's speech was barred solely because it was religious, in violation of the Free Speech Clause."

"The school has defended its actions on the ground that it sought to avoid disruption and to avoid a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution," the federal government said. "The Civil Rights Division brief argues that the school's actions discriminated against the boy's speech in violation of the free speech clause, and that the school's Establishment Clause defense was meritless."

In 2006 a federal judge ruled the principal had violated Curry's First Amendment rights. However, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit recently decided otherwise.

"Automatically classifying religious speech as offensive runs counter to settled constitutional precedent," said Shafer. "We hope the Supreme Court will agree to review Joel's case and resolve this important question, which could potentially affect thousands of public school students."

The writ of certiorari asks the high court to consider whether school officials simply can categorize religious expression as "offensive" and therefore ban it.

In the opinion issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Judge David Lawson wrote, "The exercise and its objectives did not preclude incorporating religion. There is no evidence that a child's use of a religious product would prevent other students from learning what the assignment was designed to teach. The concern that the religious message on Joel's product would interfere with the pedagogical exercise is not a legitimate basis on which to restrict his speech."

The ADF petition to the Supreme Court asks:

"Did the 6th Circuit err by holding that a public elementary school student's religious speech presented in response to, and in compliance with, a class assignment, may be categorized as per se 'offensive' because it is religious, and censored for that reason?"

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge approves university's viewpoint discrimination
Case involves system's rejection of Christian coursework

A federal judge in California ruled in favor of the University of California's decision to discriminate against coursework done by high school students that includes a Christian viewpoint.

The University of California system "necessarily facilitate some viewpoints over others in judging the excellence of those students applying to UC," said the new opinion from U.S. District Judge S. James Otero.

The judge concluded the UC system was correct to reject courses from major book publishers, including Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books, a Florida publishing powerhouse, because they include a Christian perspective.

Robert Tyler of Advocates for Faith and Freedom told WND the case now will be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and it may even end up in the Supreme Court because of the potential impacts.

Tyler is representing Calvary Chapel Christian School and five students in the case against the University of California, which imposed a policy that created an ultimatum for Christian schools. Also involved in the case is the Association of Christian Schools International.

"If you want courses to be approved in private education, so your students are qualified to attend (UC) institutions, you must teach from a secular point of view," Tyler said the UC message concludes.

"This case is very significant as it relates to the future of private Christian education because there's been a longstanding principle that governmental agencies cannot discriminate against a person or entity because of the viewpoint they espouse," Tyler said. "[This case result] is like saying, 'We will allow Republicans, Democrats and Independents but we're not going to allow the Green Party.'

"Frankly, the court's opinion ignores the longstanding constitutional principle that government agencies cannot engage in discrimination based on a person's viewpoint espoused. If the court's decision is not reversed, it will mean the UC school system has the right to discriminate purely based upon the fact that a Christian school is a Christian school or a Jewish school is Jewish," Tyler said.

One of the condemned books, according to the judge, was "United States History for Chrsitian Schools" by Bob Jones University Press. The book, according to a witness cited by the judge, is unusable because it "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events, attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action, evaluates historical figures and their contributions based on their religious motivations or lack thereof and contains inadequate treatment of … non-Christian religious groups."

The University of California system adopted its policy a year ago that science, history and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives.

"Essentially what's happening is the UC has to pre-approve courses taught in high school," Tyler said. "It's pretty shocking, because in depositions UC reps made it clear: whether it be English, history or science, the addition of a religious viewpoint makes it unacceptable.

"We believe that UC's discrimination is clearly unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment, because UC is attempting to secularize Christian schools," Tyler told WND earlier.

"The UC is intent upon defending some 'right' to discriminate unlawfully," he said. "They seem steadfast that students will not be adequately prepared for college because a Christian worldview was added to their curriculum."

Under the disputed policy, classes based on books that mention God or the Bible don't count, effectively making a secular education a prerequisite for admission.

Burt Carney, an executive with the Association of Christian Schools International, said he's met with officials for the university system and was told that there was no problem with the actual facts in a BJU physics textbook that was disallowed.

In fact, an ACSI report said, UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved ."

"Here's the very university that talks about academic freedom," Carney said. "It's very discriminating. They don't rule against Muslim or Hindu or Jewish (themes) or so forth, only those with a definite Christian theme."

According to the lawsuit, a variety of textbooks with supplemental perspectives were accepted – just not those with a Christian perspective.

For example, "Western Civilization: The Jewish Experience" and "Issues in African History" were accepted, but "Christianity's Influence on American History" was rejected. "Feminine Roles in Literature," "Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature" and "Literature of Dissent" were accepted, but "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" was not.

Most strikingly, "Intro to Buddhism," "Introduction to Jewish Thought," "Women's Studies & Feminism" and "Raza Studies" were deemed acceptable electives, but "Special Providence: American Government" was unacceptable, both as a civics and elective course.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Founders' prayer violated Constitution as they wrote it'
Legal team defends invocations after Freethinkers raise challenge

Officials in Mesa County, Colo., who have been warned by atheists and "freethinkers" that they are being watched, have been told they will get help if they are sued over a policy that allows invocations to open public meetings in the Western Colorado region.

The offer of help comes from Alliance Defense Fund, whose senior legal counsel, Mike Johnson, said, "Public officials throughout our country need to be encouraged and reminded that they can and should resist the increasingly radical demands of secularist groups with regard to invocations before public meetings."

The organization's offer to Mesa County includes any challenge to such activities if the commissioners adopt a model prayer policy that has been written specifically to meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

"It is sad that some radical secularist groups are trying to eliminate one of our oldest and most cherished American traditions," Johnson added.

The dispute in Grand Junction involves the Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, along with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Atheists, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

The organizations have reported in local news reports they are "watching" the commissioners' actions.

"As you know, there is simply no question that a legislative body may open its sessions with an invocation," ADF told the commissioners. "Public prayer has been an essential part of our heritage since the time of this nation's founding, and our Constitution has always protected this activity. Moreover, such prayer can include sectarian references without running afoul of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause."

The activist law firm said the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed such an interpretation, and indeed, that very court opens with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable court."

"Our country's Founding Fathers opened their meetings with prayer," Johnson said. "Those who oppose Christian invocations are essentially arguing that the Founders were violating the Constitution as they were writing it."

The offer comes as part of the ADF's campaign, which it launched in 2007, to advise public bodies of their constitutional rights to open meetings with an invocation. The group mailed thousands of informational letters to local governments with that advice.

Since then, the ADF have gotten numerous requests for help from state legislatures and county and city governments.

In announcing the ADF program, Johnson said, "It's amazing that, in a country founded on religious liberty, the centuries-old choice to open a public meeting with a prayer of the giver's choosing is coming under attack."

He said opponents have launched a campaign of "fear, intimidation, and disinformation" to threaten governmental officials, and the ADF is responding with legal advice and help for those who want to battle the "far-flung, secular agenda."

[Soldier4Christ]

Teacher fights to post Declaration of Independence quote
Principal claims 'endowed by their Creator' is too Judeo-Christian for school

A math teacher sued his school district after the principal told him the words "In God We Trust" and "All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator" must be removed from his homeroom wall because they convey a Judeo-Christian viewpoint.

In January, Principal Dawn Kastner told Westview High School math teacher Bradley Johnson that a banner he had posted in his classroom for 25 years, and another that was posted for 17 years, needed to come down.

The older banner, measuring 7 feet by 2 feet, contained the words "In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God," "God Bless Ameirica" and "God Shed His Grace On Thee." The second banner quoted the Declaration of Independence by including the phrase, "All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator."

Even though 4,000 students have passed through Johnson's classroom without a single complaint in 25 years, the principal told Johnson the banners were now impermissible because of their religious content.

The Thomas More Law Center, a not-for-profit law firm dedicated to the defense of religious freedoms, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Johnson against the Poway Unified School District of San Diego, Calif., which includes Westview High School, claiming the order to remove the banners violated Johnson's First Amendment freedom of speech, particularly since the district permits other teachers to hang Buddhist, Islamic, and Tibetan prayer messages on their classroom walls.

Richard Thompson, president of the Law Center, commented, "Many public schools exhibit a knee-jerk hostility towards Christianity and seek to cleanse our nation's classrooms of our religious heritage while promoting atheism or other religions under the guise of cultural diversity."

The school district, in turn, filed to have the lawsuit dismissed. But last week, Federal District Judge Robert T. Benitez denied the request, stating, "Johnson has made out a clear claim for relief for an ongoing violation of his First Amendment free speech rights," and calling the principal's order "an unequivocal case of government hostility" toward the Judeo-Christian viewpoint.

"Judge Benitez's strongly worded opinion sends a clear message to school districts across the country that hostility toward our Nation's religious heritage is contrary to our Constitution," said Rober Muise, the Thomas More Law Center lawyer handling the case.

According to court documents, the school district argued for dismissal, saying that Johnson's banners do not enjoy First Amendment protections "because Johnson is speaking as an educator, not a citizen" and "because Johnson was a teacher, he had no First Amendment protections in his classroom."

Judge Benitez sharply disagreed, claiming the district's argument amounted to saying that Johnson has no free speech rights at all because he is a government employee.

Benitez quoted the 1969 Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which stated, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years."

The judge then added, "In the 40 years since, the Supreme Court has neither diminished the force of Tinker for teachers nor in any other way cabined the First Amendment speech of public school teachers."

Benitez then presented a strong rebuttal to the charge that the Declaration of Independence and phrases like "In God We Trust" represent unconstitutional religious establishment.

"The Court does not understand Johnson's banners as communicating a religious Judeo-Christian viewpoint," Benitez wrote in his decision. "Rather, the banners communicated fundamental political messages and celebrate important American shared historical experiences."

Benitez further wrote, "That God places prominently in our nation's history does not create an Establishment Clause problem requiring curettage and disinfectant of Johnson's classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God."

Benitez then quoted a 1952 Supreme Court ruling, Zorach v. Clauson: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."

The judge concluded his decision with the remarks, "By squelching only Johnson's patriotic expression, the school district does a disservice to the students of Westview High School, and the federal and state constitutions do not permit such one-sided censorship."

[Soldier4Christ]

Christmas banned on college campus
To avoid 'discrimination,' replaced with 'end of term' break

With a stroke of the pen, a college has eliminated Christmas from the calendar. Likewise, Easter is gone, both now being branded "end of term" breaks at Yorkshire Coast College, according to the UK's Daily Mail.

The reason? Apparently school officials wanted to make sure they didn't "discriminate."

"Every school and college, wherever located, is responsible for educating its learners who will live and work in a country which is diverse in terms of cultures, religions or beliefs, ethnicities and social backgrounds," a spokeswoman for the college told the newspaper.

"All employees at Yorkshire Coast College are encouraged to closely follow guidelines set out … for the promotion of equality and diversity," she said. "We constantly review the ways in which we communicate, to ensure that we do not discriminate, and part of those reviews means that we have stopped referring to the Christmas Break and Easter Break and we now have End of Term Break.

In the words of Tory Member of Parliament Robert Goodwill, that's "barmy."

"We are a Christian country and, to be honest, religious tolerance in this country is about respecting other people's religious beliefs," he told the Daily Mail. "We live in a country where there is a mutual respect for religious beliefs."

He said changing the names of school breaks to be politically correct is "absolutely barmy."

"School terms are traditionally separated by Christmas and Easter and they should be referred to as such," he said. "They are petrified that they offend the minority, but what they are doing is offending the majority."

The college, in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, offers a range of courses such as engineering, computer classes and motor vehicle classes.

The calendar on which the titles were changed is distributed to about 150 teaching staff members and another 50 workers to inform them of term schedules and deadlines.

[Soldier4Christ]

State bans 'Jesus' from troopers' prayers
'This edict is unacceptable and unconstitutional'

Virginia Gov. Timothy Kaine is being called on the carpet by a national religious freedom advocacy organization after his administration implemented a new state policy forbidding state police chaplains from using "Jesus Christ" in public prayers, and half a dozen chaplains resigned in protest.

"This edict is unacceptable and unconstitutional and must be reversed immediately," said Bishop Council Nedd, chief of the group called In God We Trust USA. "Governor Kaine must immediately rescind this decision and beg the state police chaplains who have resigned in protest to return to duty."

Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former Navy chaplain who's been through a similar situation, also condemned the action.

"It's happening all over again! I cannot believe we live in a society where government officials literally dictate the content of a chaplain's prayers and dare to punish or exclude chaplains who pray 'in Jesus name,'" said  Klingenschmitt, who was fired from the military last year for praying "in Jesus name."

He later won a victory in Congress providing that right to other military chaplains and has a case pending to be reinstated.

"Kaine should be held responsible, since he campaigned as a Christian to get our votes. Now let's see him govern like a Christian," Klingenschmitt said.

According to Nedd, the ban was issued by state police Col. W. Steven Flaherty to chaplains just weeks ago. The dispute became public through the work of Charles W. Carrico Sr., a member of Virginia's House of Delegates who is a former trooper and will head up a Virginia effort to oppose the policy.

"In God We Trust will assist Delegate Carrico and oppose this policy with every means at our disposal," said Nedd. "Our supporters in Virginia are absolutely furious that the Commonwealth's government would rather its state troopers go without chaplains than risk someone being offended by a Christian chaplain invoking the name of Jesus Christ," Nedd said.

The group's report said there had been no complaints about any of the prayers by chaplains; it was simply a ban adopted "to prevent any possible future lawsuits."

The action, however, violates their First Amendment rights and prevents the chaplains "from serving effectively," said House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith. "These men had little choice but to resign."

Flaherty reported he was acting on an appeals court ruling dealing with prayers at the Fredericksburg city council, and his rule allowed only "nondenominational" prayers at public events.

He said those who object could opt out.

"This is not a forced situation," a spokeswoman for the state law enforcement agency said. "We wouldn't put them in that position."

Klingenschmitt battled the military over the same dispute.

He called those who resigned heroes, "because they refused to deny Jesus when ordered to by the Kaine administration."

The appeals court opinion the state cited was decided in a written ruling from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who said discriminating against anyone who prays "in Jesus name" among officials rotating responsibilities to open city meetings is fair and reasonable.

Her reasoning left Klingenschmitt wondering how that conclusion had been reached.

That dispute focused on Rev. Hashmel Turner, a resident of Fredericksburg, Va., and a member of the town council, who was a part of a rotation of council members who prayed at the council meetings. He ended his prayers "in Jesus name."

That phrase, however, offended a listener, who prompted the involvement of several activist groups that threatened a lawsuit if the elected Christian council member continued to be allowed to pray "in Jesus name."

The city then adopted a non-sectarian prayer requirement, imposing a ban on any reference to "Jesus."

O'Connor wrote: "The restriction that prayers be nonsectarian in nature is designed to make the prayers accessible to people who come from a variety of backgrounds, not to exclude or disparage a particular faith."

"Ironically, she admitted Turner was excluded from participating solely because of the Christian content of his prayer," Klingenschmitt noted.

"The Fredericksburg government violated everybody's rights by establishing a nonsectarian religion, and requiring all prayers conform, or face punishment of exclusion," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Pastors to IRS: You can't tell us what to preach
Ministers team up this weekend to defy tax code on talking politics

This weekend a select team of 33 pastors in 22 states will be preaching on politics in a direct challenge to a federal tax statute that forbids churches from interfering with political campaigns.

The pastors are participating in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" as part of an effort called the Pulpit Initiative developed by the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization of lawyers dedicated to defending religious liberty.

As WND reported earlier, ADF launched the Pulpit Initiative to challenge a 1954 amendment to the Internal Revenue Service code submitted by Democratic Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson that permitted the IRS to revoke a church's tax-exempt status if the preaching gets too political.

The ADF believes that pastors have a First Amendment right to speak on politics if they choose, and that by using its tax authority to limit pulpit content, it is the government, and not the preacher, who is violating the separation of church and state.

"Pastors have a right to speak about biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley on the group's website. "No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights."

The ADF reported to the New York Times that it selected 33 pastors who were fully aware of the risks and benefits of participating in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" from a list of hundreds of preachers who had volunteered. Their names, however, have not been released because of reported threats to disrupt their services.

Pastor Wiley Drake of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., who was cleared of wrongdoing earlier this year after complaints were filed over his personal endorsement of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, has made it no secret he agrees with the ADF.

"We happen to believe in the separation of church and state," Drake says. "And we believe that prohibiting a pastor's sermon, either for or against a candidate, violates the (Constitution) of the United States."

Before 1954, churches freely evaluated the politicians of the day on moral issues without fear of retribution. Lyndon Johnson's amendment to the tax code, however, effectively censored sermons.

"As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted," said Stanley, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy. The real effect of the Johnson Amendment is that pastors are muzzled for fear of investigation by the IRS."

The ADF has promised it is ready to equip and defend the pastors selected for "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," even if that means going to court and challenging the tax code.

"We're reminding them that they have the right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates," ADF counsel Mike Johnson told WND, "and we're going to be there for them if there's a challenge."

To opponents who want to take to court the issue over such First Amendment restrictions, he added, "It's time to have that test."

Among those opponents is Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization that works to report churches for violations of the 1954 Johnson Amendment.

Speaking of the Pulpit Initiative, Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United told the New York Times, "They act like this is a massive act of civil disobedience, but this is not like sitting in at a lunch counter. This is trying to change the law to give certain conservative churches even more political clout."

ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley disagreed.

"ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit. … We need to get the government out of the pulpit," he said.

As the 33 pastors plan for this weekend's sermons, journalists have been eager to discover what they'll be preaching.

The New York Times asked Rev. Luke Emrich of New Life Church, in West Bend, Wis., which candidate he planned to endorse on Sunday.

"I would say endorsement is a strong word," he answered. "I'm planning to make a recommendation. I'm going to evaluate each candidate's positions in light of Scripture and make a recommendation to my congregation as to which candidate aligns more so."

The Los Angeles Times tracked down Rev. Gus Booth of Warroad Community Church in Minnesota, who already is the subject of a complaint filed with the IRS over a sermon in which he urged congregants to oppose Democrat senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton because of their positions on abortion.

"There is nobody who will ever tell me what I can and cannot say from behind my pulpit," Booth told the newspaper, "except the Spirit of God or the Word of God."

[Soldier4Christ]

Lawsuit accuses district of promoting 'caring' climate
Freedom From Religion Foundation claims that's Jesus' teaching from Mark

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is bringing a lawsuit against the Cherry Creek schools in Denver because some of the principles taught in the district's "40 Developmental Assets" program allegedly are drawn from biblical teachings.

For example, Asset 5 in the program, a "caring school climate," allegedly is related by the institute to the teaching in the New Testament book of Mark, which says, "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name, welcomes me," according to a report in the Denver Post.

The program also recommends students spend an hour or more a week in a religious community, and the complaint alleges that is using tax money to promote religion, the report said.

The foundation, based in Madison, Wis., said in an amended complaint in federal court in Denver it has evidence the Cherry Creek program, developed by the Search Institute, is linked to the Bible.

Bob Tiernan, a lawyer for the foundation, told the Post even though the school district doesn't distribute any Bible references, they are an underlying part of the program.

"Everybody in our society – particularly religious people – has a stake in keeping religion and government separate," he told the newspaper.

School district officials declined comment. The program has been in the district for 15 years but is not curriculum; it is a behavioral framework promoted by the schools.

The Post said Tiernan first filed the lawsuit last year, objecting to Asset 19, which was: "Religious Community – Young person spends one or more hours per week in activities in a religious institution."

U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger last month dismissed the case, saying there was no indication or evidence the program either advances or inhibits beliefs, the Post said. Her ruling said the program was neither coercive nor entangled government in religion.

[Soldier4Christ]

"caring school climate,"

It sounds to me like they want the schools to promote a don't care school climate but then of course there are a lot of schools today that are in that sort of climate already.

[HisDaughter]

"There is nobody who will ever tell me what I can and cannot say from behind my pulpit," Booth told the newspaper, "except the Spirit of God or the Word of God."

Hallelujah!

[Soldier4Christ]

Pastors back candidates in IRS protest
33 churches chosen for 'Pulpit Freedom Sunday'

Pastor Luke Emrich prepared his sermon this week knowing his remarks could invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. But that was the whole point, so Emrich forged ahead with his message: Thou shalt vote according to the Scriptures.

"I'm telling you straight up, I would choose life," Emrich told about 100 worshippers Sunday at New Life Church, a nondenominational evangelical congregation about 40 miles from Milwaukee.

"I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin," he said. "But friends, it's your choice to make, it's not my choice. I won't be in the voting booth with you."

All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.

The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors' sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed.

Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Thirty-three were chosen, in part for "strategic criteria related to litigation" Stanley wouldn't discuss.

Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga., said in an interview Sunday that his sermon compared Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on abortion and gay marriage and concluded that McCain "holds more to a biblical world view."

He said he urged the Southern Baptist congregation to vote for McCain.

"The basic thrust was this was not a matter of endorsing, it's a First Amendment issue," Hice said. "To say the church can't deal with moral and societal issues if it enters into the political arena is just wrong, it's unconstitutional."

At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, "As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain."

"It's absolutely vital to proclaim the truth and not be afraid to proclaim the truth from our pulpits," Blair said in an interview.

Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there's "virtually no chance" courts will strike down the prohibition.

"The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that's essentially what it's done here," Tuttle said.

Not all the sermons came off as planned. Bishop Robert Smith Sr. of Word of Outreach Center in Little Rock said he had to postpone until next week because of a missed flight. Smith, a delegate to this month's Republican National Convention, declined to say whom he would endorse.

Promotional materials for the initiative said each pastor would prepare the sermon with "legal assistance of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS."

Stanley said the pastors alone wrote the sermons, with the framework that they be "a biblical evaluation of the candidates for office with a specific recommendation." That could be a flat-out endorsement or opposition to one or both candidates, he said.

The legal group declined to release a list of participants in advance, citing concerns about potential disruptions at services. A list and excerpts from sermons will be made public early this week, with the delay necessary for lawyers to review the material, the group said.

Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voter guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly - a sometimes murky line.

The IRS said in a statement it is aware of Sunday's initiative and "will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate."

The agency has stepped up oversight of political activity in churches in recent years after receiving a flurry of complaints from the 2004 campaign. The IRS reported issuing written advisories against 42 churches for improper politically activity in 2004.

The ban on churches intervening in candidate campaigns survived a court challenge when a U.S. appellate court upheld the revocation of tax-exempt status of a New York church that took out a newspaper ad urging Christians to vote against Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.

Opposition to Sunday's sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because "we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt."

Three former IRS officials also asked the agency to investigate the initiative, questioning the ethics of lawyers asking ministers to break the law.

Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"It is good public policy that in exchange for the valuable privilege of a tax exemption, you cannot turn your church or charity into a political action committee," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which intends to report the participating churches to the IRS, along with any other churches acting independently.

[Soldier4Christ]

Christian heritage a no-show in new $600M visitors center
Chuck Norris asks Congress, 'Can I help fix this problem?'

American taxpayers have spent more than $600 million on a new visitors' center at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., and it will have acres of marble floors and walls, photographs of Earth Day, information about an AIDS rally and details about the nation's industrial sector. What it will not include is America's Christian heritage, raising objections from members of Congress and drawing an inquiry from Chuck Norris about whether he can help fix it.

The new 580,000-square-foot center, mostly built underneath the grounds just east of the U.S. Capitol to protect the scenic views of the historic building, is about three-quarters the size of the Capitol itself, has exhibition galleries, theaters, a 550-seat cafeteria, gift shops and myriad other features.

The project, run by the office of the architect of the Capitol, has been delayed from its original opening date set several years ago and has cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than estimated, officials have confirmed.

But the finished product still, according to members of Congress, is seriously lacking. Rep. J. Randy Forbes, R-Va., said 108 members of Congress have signed a letter to the architect's office expressing their concerns that the historical content simply is inaccurate.

Among the references to God or American's religious history that are omitted is the nation's motto, "In God We Trust," the letter said.

"Our concern is not just with the Capitol Visitor Center, but with [an] increasing pattern of attempts to remove references to our religious heritage from our nation's capital," said Forbes. "The Capitol Visitor Center is just one example of efforts to censor God, faith, and religion from our historical buildings, documents, and ceremonies."

The revisionism that attempts to remove God and Christianity from America's history has been documented by WND's coverage of the work of Todd DuBord, the former pastor at Lake Almanor Community Church in California. He now serves as a special chaplain for Chuck Norris' organizations.

Dubord was leading trips of tourists to Washington and nearby areas to review the nation's Christian heritage when he started noticing what appeared to be a deliberate campaign to remove references to the Bible and Christianity.

He revealed when tour guides at the U.S. Supreme Court building called depictions of the Ten Commandments the "Ten Amendments," and he followed up by disclosing a number of other apparently related efforts to wipe Christianity from U.S. history, including efforts at Jefferson's Monticello, where tour guides told him they were unable to talk about the religious influences there.

He later documented how officials at the Washington Monument  had placed a replica of the 100-ounce solid aluminum capstone, which is inscribed with the Latin "Praise Be to God," so that visitors could not read the words and a resulting investigation by the National Park Service prompted a change in that procedure.

His large body of research, including documentation and photographs, now has been assembled on his website, NationalTreasures.org.

WND also has reported on efforts to make history politically correct, such as calling Europeans' arrival in North America an "invasion," for the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement last year, even though the first goal of those sent out to America was to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The new Capitol Visitor Center appears to be falling under the influence of that same politically correct agenda, according to the letter from Congress.

"Historical buildings like the Capitol Visitor Center are there to tell the story of our nation," said Forbes. "When religious history is removed from these displays, the American public is not able to observe an accurate depiction of our nation's stor.  We owe it to those who have gone before us and to our future generations to provide a complete representation of our nation's heritage. We will continue to fight until this is achieved in the Capitol Visitor Center."

He said the Congressional Prayer Caucus, whose members' signatures were among those on the letter, have been working to restore "references to our religious heritage in the past, and we are aiming to do it again now with the Capitol Visitor Center."

The letter said, in addition to omitting any reference to the national motto, there are "factual inaccuracies regarding Capitol church services," and references to "religion, morality, and knowledge" in the Northwest Ordinance have been edited out.

"In addition, the Capitol Visitor Center includes photos from Earth Day, an AIDS rally, various casino grounds, and factories, but it does not include photos from monumental religious events such as the National Day of Prayer or the March for Life event, attended by thousands annually, among other things," the letter said.

Officials running the Capitol also have tried to strip the mention of God from flag-folding ceremonies at veterans' funerals and previously attempted to edit "God" from congressional flag certificates, which are statements issued with flags that have been flown over the Capitol.

A letter responding to members of Congress from Stephen T. Ayers, acting architect of the Capitol, didn't directly address the questions raised .

"The Capitol Preservation Commission, a bicameral, bipartisan committee, was selected by the U.S. Congress to oversee the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center, including determining the content of the exhibitry," he wrote. "Comprised of representatives elected by the people of the United States, the CPC worked to ensure that the Capitol Visitor Center is of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Pastor DuBord's work also was highlighted in Norris' new book, "Black Belt Patriotism," which gives a no-holds-barred assessment of American culture, hitting everything from family values to national security.

Norris writes, "It seems like wherever you turn these days, the news is bad. Illegal immigrants are swarming over our borders. Our nation and American families are crippled by debt. We remain vulnerable to Islamist terrorist attacks. Judges ignore the Constitution and instead legislate from the bench. Faith and traditional values are under incessant assault from the media, leftist lawyers, and the liberal establishment. The core message of the Declaration of Independence – that everyone has a God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – is under threat from liberals who deny the right to life (or even the very idea of God-given rights), and who think the answer to every problem is a government program. They think that God, if He exists, might not know best, but liberal-run government certainly does."

DuBord told WND that Norris was concerned about the editing of Christianity from America's history at the new center.

"He told me last night to get hold of the Prayer Caucus to see if there is anything we can do to help them rectify the situation," he said.

DuBord said if it's history, it's history. The situation is just that simple.

"If this is history, and this is our Capitol, then teach our heritage," he said. "Don't revise it. Don't skew it. Don't distort it."

He said the goal appears to be erasing from America's heritage the Christian influences that started the nation, the Christian leadership throughout its years and the Christian fundamentals on which it is based.

Government officials report the idea for the center predates the first Iraq war, but it was stalled during the 1990s because of costs. It was revived in 1998 after a gunman killed two Capitol police. A budget of $265 million was proposed with a completion date of 2004.

[Soldier4Christ]

Although it does upset me that our Christian heritage was left out of this project my question is why did they build it at all. To me it appears to be another unnecessary pork barrel project. The spending of taxpayers money on something that is actually not needed in a time when the financial system is in crisis and taxes are skyrocketing high enough.