Print Page - Christ, Christians and Christmas Under Attack In The Courts

ADF intervening against ACLU in Illinois 'moment of silence' case

The appeal for Illinois's "moment of silence" in schools will go to hearing in federal court, after public interest attorneys helping to represent Township High School District were granted a motion to intervene as a third party. Attorneys from Alliance Defense Fund will participate in briefing and oral arguments in the case involving a law that has been effect since 1969.

The state of Illinois' long-time law allowing an optional moment of silence became a point of conflict when the school district made it mandatory each morning, although it did not dictate how the moment was to be used -- leaving it students and teachers to choose silent reflection or prayer.

An atheist man with a son in Buffalo Grove High School sued the school district over its implementation of the law, according to Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) counsel David Cortman, leading to an injunction by a federal court earlier this year. Cortman says the judge favored allowing ADF to intervene in helping with argument on one side of the constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union on the other.

"If a student has a right to silently pray during that time -- which he absolutely does -- then does it create a constitutional violation merely to state that in the law?" Cortman asks. "Because all this law does is [tell students] this is what you can do; and as one of the options, you can pray. Well, how does it create a constitutional violation merely to state what the student's constitutional right is?"

The ADF attorney explains he will argue that just because the statute mentions prayer -- "the 'p' word," as he puts it -- that does not automatically make it an unconstitutional law or mean that prayer should be treated as if it were pornography or an obscenity.

Briefs in the case will also cover other matters, including whether the suit will become a class action.

Bible studies
finally 'free'
County had told 2 groups to buy
2.5 acres or stop their meetings

A lawsuit alleging officials in Miami-Dade County violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law by demanding that members of Bible studies, even if only two or three people were involved, own an least 2.5 acres of land to meet has been dropped after county officials changed their minds.

The lawsuit by the Alliance Defense Fund had been filed early in 2007 after authorities issued cease-and-desist orders to two separate Christian organizations, the International Outreach Center and Worldwide Agape Ministries, demanding they purchase enough land to make their properties at least 2.5 acres, or stop meeting.

County officials, however, later concluded their demands should be dropped, so the ADF said it was dropping the lawsuit also.

"County officials agreed that forcing people to purchase 2.5 acres of land in order to meet in a private home is ridiculous," said Joel Oster, senior legal counsel for the ADF. "We commend county officials for standing up for the rights of our clients."

The issue arose during the course of 2006, when the International Outreach Center, after meeting for prayer, Bible study, discussion and singing on its small rented property for more than a decade, was given a code violation notice from the county stating the group needed to apply for a "certificate of use."

Additionally, the group was told it would have to purchase enough land to comprise at least 2.5 acres, or stop meeting.

A similar order went to Worldwide Agape Ministries, a home-based religious ministry that meets for the same purposes as IOC, officials said.

"County officials stated at the time that the group would have to purchase 2.5 acres of land to continue meetings, even if the regular gathering included two to three people," the ADF confirmed.

Its lawsuit was filed in February of 2007, alleging that the county's demand was unreasonable, and worse, illegal and unconstitutional.

"The limitation placed on these ministries acts as a major roadblock, particularly since land in south Florida is so expensive," Oster said. "County officials cannot be permitted to continue the enforcement of these broad restrictions against those who simply want to exercise their freedom of religion."

The complaint had documented that the IOC had used the property it has since 1994 for various meetings and events, but in 2006 it was told it failed to meet the county's zoning code, which requires that a church be located on at least 2.5 acres.

Specifically, that code said, "No church shall be constructed, operated or permitted upon any site that does not contain a minimum of two and one-half (2 ½) acres of land area, including street dedications, and having a minimum contiguous frontage of at least one hundred fifty (150) feet abutting on a public street right-of-way…"

Since IOC, with about 70 members, leased a number of units in a commercial building, it was unable to meet the property size demand. Likewise, WW Ministries meets in a home, and was told "by Miami-Dade County Zoning Compliance Officer R. Brunetto that they could not even have 2-3 people come over to their house for prayer. … Officer Brunetto warned the Plaintiffs that if they continued to have others come to their house for prayer, they would be fined and possibly, a lien could be placed on their house."

The complaint alleged the zoning code provision violated the U.S. Constitution and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

The lawsuit pointed out that the county allowed other activities on smaller parcels, but not churches.

"For example, although auditoriums and private clubs are permitted as a matter of right in the IU-1 District, churches are not," the complaint said. "Defendant's Code does not treat churches within the County equally with other public assembly uses."

However, changes within the county code prompted the ADF to make the decision to pursue legal action no longer.

"County officials are now fully supporting the rights of the groups under federal law, making the lawsuit unnecessary," the ADF said in a statement.

The dismissal document noted, "the parties have worked collaboratively and expeditiously to proffer proposed legislation to the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners… On Oct. 16, 2007, a proposed ordinance … was preliminarily approved on first reading by the Board."

It was planned for final approval early this month, with an effective date 10 days later.

"The … legislation essentially eliminates the Code's acreage and frontage requirements, which were adopted in the 1950s, for religious facilities. The parties agree that the enactment of the proposed legislation will address the plaintiffs' concerns as alleged," the court "Joint Status Report" said.

The city of Lake Elsinore, Calif., earlier had an encounter with a conflict between local zoning regulations and the requirements under RLUIPA, which essentially requires that churches be allowed to exist and expand.

Lake Elsinore officials had rejected building plans by Elsinore Christian Center because they preferred having a property tax-paying operation on the property.

The city's case lost in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the city ended up settling with the church for $1.205 million for damages sustained by the city's initial rejection of church plans.

The appellate ruling found that the city violated RLUIPA, which codifies the First Amendment and provides that governments cannot use land use regulations, such as zoning, to place a "substantial burden" on churches unless there is compelling state interest.

School districts continue free shoe distribution despite legal threat

The Alliance Defense Fund was able to prevent a liberal group from spoiling the Christmas cheer of two South Carolina school districts by offering to serve as their legal counsel.

The Edgefield and Aiken County districts had received threats of legal action from Americans United for Separation of Church and State last month for facilitating distribution of shoes to students by volunteers in a church-sponsored program. During winter each year, a Baptist church in the Aiken, South Carolina, area offers the "Laces 4 Love" program, which provides shoes to consenting parents of children who are wearing worn-out or inappropriately cold seasonal footwear.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney David Cortman says schools in the two districts provide parental contact information to the church and then allow volunteers to come to schools to deliver the shoes. "Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- one of the far-left liberal groups -- basically found out about this and threatened to sue the school, no less during Christmas time, if they didn't discontinue this worthwhile program," he explains.

ADF sent a letter to the districts informing them that the partnership was perfectly legal, as much as a partnership with a secular aid group would be, and that the Constitution provides equal access for the church's program. They also offered to defend the districts if they received legal action from Americans United.

Bolstered by ADF's support, the districts chose to continue the program. Cortman says liberals are once again trying to wipe out religion from daily life, despite constitutional provision against restricting freedom of religion.

"If this were any secular organization, no one would say a word," the attorney shares. "But merely because a religious organization is doing what the Bible encourages us all to do -- and that is reach out to the needy, reach out to the poor and offer them a service -- for some reason in the left's eyes it automatically becomes unconstitutional."

According to an ADF press statement, Laces 4 Love has distributed in excess of 12,000 pairs of shoes to children in the two-county area.

Rev Barry W. Lynn, minister for the devil, is the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization that started out being predominately Presbyterian but is now largely atheists.

Regulators' assault plan puts church in crosshairs
Proposal considers taxes, fees, restrictions on numbers, sizes
Posted: January 6, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

A regulatory plan being considered by a Toronto suburb would put churches in the crosshairs of an assault that would include dramatically higher taxes and fees as well as restrictions on the sizes and numbers of worship centers.

A series of reports by the No Apologies website featuring WND columnist Tristan Emmanuel has revealed the stunning proposals in Brampton that one source confirmed would be used in multiple cities should the Brampton effort prove successful.

WND already has reported how many Biblical standards of behavior are under attack by the "bastardized courts" of Canada, where activists who claim they have "hurt feelings" are demanding – and getting – penalties imposed against those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle.

That description of the courts, also known as the provincial and national Human Rights Commissions, comes from the Canada Family Action Coalition, which is warning that the United States is not far from having similar assaults on traditional family values.

Now comes the report from the site launched by Emmanuel, the founder and president of the ECP Centre – Equipping Christians for the Public-Square as well as the host of "No Apologies," a weekly web-radio show "dedicated to illustrating the absurdity of political correctness."

"One person who's involved … has told us at NoApologies.ca that Brampton is considered a test scenario for dozens of other municipalities in Canada, and that if the tax changes can be pushed through there, other cities are almost sure to follow," the report said.

Among the changes being reviewed:

* A plan to subject all "non-worship" space owned by religious groups to property taxes. This "non-worship" space would include offices, kitchens, nurseries, fellowship halls, parking lots, restrooms, etc. Not even the sanctuary would all be exempt: only the area "where the congregation sits/stands/gathers for actual worship."

* A new definition of "places of worship" to eliminate current provisions allowing church properties to be used for day care centers or soup kitchens.

* New limits for start-up churches, who would be allowed to rent only 3,000 square feet of industrial space for a maximum of three years before being required to buy property.

* A limit allowing only one "place of worship" for every 10,000 residents.

* A stratospheric rise in fees for things like zoning and variance issues. One church reportedly had to pay Brampton $400,000 for the paperwork required to build a new sanctuary.

* Ban religious meetings in homes if they involve more than 20 people, children included.

No Apologies reports that churches and other religious organizations are assembling a response to the proposals outlined in a city study, and a city council vote is scheduled later in January.

A spokeswoman for the city told WND that the study has been launched into a "development charge bylaw," but it isn't yet completed, and doesn't even have a schedule for completion. "No recommendations have been made," she said.

Al Siebring, the editor for the website, wrote in a commentary when he first heard of the plan, he thought it had to be an urban legend.

But he said someone "with a bit of sympathy for the churches" leaked a copy of the still-unreleased plan that includes parts "that read like they could have been written in Stalinist Russia."

"There are some really egregious rights violations potentially going on here, " he said, listing freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and "that little thing" called freedom of religion.

"For someone who grew up reading authors like [Voice of the Martyrs founder] Richard Wurmbrand and [Open Doors founder] Brother Andrew, the parallels to the old Soviet Union and its satellites are striking. The notion of a 'knock on the door' in the middle of a prayer meeting is so counter to everything we have understood to be fundamental to the notion of 'freedom of religion' as to be almost unthinkable," he wrote.

The one good thing about the plan, he said, is that the application of new taxes, fees and limits would be on all "religious" facilities, including temples, mosques, ashrams and chapels.

"Which is why a coalition of 'faith groups' has been formed … to fight this," he said.

Pastor Kevin Begley is the head of the new Brampton Faith Coalition, and indicated the details truly are horrific. He cited the new "plans" for new churches.

"If you want to use a rec centre or a school, you can't get that every week because it's not available," Begley told the website. "(But) if you rent a space in an industrial unit, the draft document recommends that it must be under 3,000 square feet, and you're only allowed in that area for three years. Well, 3,000 square feet - and that includes your offices, your sanctuary, your lobby, your children's or youth (ministries), whatever you want to do - you have 3,000 square feet which is ... about half the size of a gymnasium. And you're only allowed there for three years. After three years, you must have the money in the bank to go out and purchase (your own land and building). That's just not realistic. Land in our city right now is running about a million dollars an acre."

Woman loses right to wear cross
Court decides in favor of British Airways in discrimination suit

A Christian British Airways employee who sued the company after it required her to cover up a cross necklace while on the job has lost her discrimination suit, but she vows to return to work tomorrow wearing the cross.

As WND reported, Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida, who is a Coptic Christian and whose father is Egyptian and mother English, was sent home after refusing to remove the cross, which British Airways claimed violated its dress code.

Eweida, who was placed on unpaid leave, sued her employer, charging religious discrimination, since the company allowed employees of other religions, such as Islam and Hinduism, to wear faith-related items, including clothing, jewelry and religious markings.

The suit continued despite the airline loosening its cross prohibition last year.

An attorney affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund represented Eweida in court.

"Christian employees should not be singled out for discrimination. This decision will be appealed," said ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull, in a statement. "According to British Airways, it's OK for employees to wear a symbol of their faith unless it's a Christian cross. The airline took no action against employees of other religions who wore jewelry or symbols of their religion. That type of intolerance is inconsistent with the values of civilized communities around the world."

The 56-year-old Eweida is quoted by BBC as saying: "I'm very disappointed. I'm speechless really because I went to the tribunal to seek justice. But the judge has given way for BA to have a victory on imposing their will on all their staff."

Eweida lost her initial suit against the company but won an injunction on appeal in the Reading Employment Tribunal. However, in yesterday's ruling in the case, Eweida v. British Airways, the court ruled the airline can continue to prohibit Eweida from visibly wearing her cross. The court concluded that other types of religious symbols, such as turbans, bangles and other religious markings, are unable to be concealed and are therefore acceptable.

"No Christian should be forced to hide her faith in the workplace, particularly when a double-standard exists targeting only Christians for discriminatory treatment," said Bull. "This case should be of particular interest to the American customers of British Airways who understand and value religious liberty."

In a statement, British Airways said: "We have always maintained that our uniform policy did not discriminate against Christians, and we are pleased that the tribunal's decision supports our position.

"Our current policy allows symbols of faith to be worn openly and has been developed with multi-faith groups and our staff.

"Nadia Eweida has worked for us for eight years and continues to be a valued member of our staff."

Regarding appealing the case, Eweida commented, "It's not over until God says it's over."

Judge blocks Missouri public schools from distributing Bibles

A rural school district's long-standing practice of allowing the distribution of Bibles to grade school students is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled.

An attorney for the southeastern Missouri school district said Wednesday he will appeal the judge's injunction against the practice.

For more than three decades, the South Iron School District in Annapolis, 120 miles southwest of St. Louis in the heart of the Bible Belt, allowed representatives of Gideons International to give away Bibles in fifth-grade classrooms.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit two years ago on behalf of four sets of parents. In August, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary injunction against the practice.

The district altered its policy, saying the Gideons and others were still welcome to distribute Bibles or other literature before or after school or during lunch break, but not in classrooms.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry ruled both practices were illegal and granted a permanent injunction.

The purpose of both practices "is the promotion of Christianity by distributing Bibles to elementary school students," Perry wrote. "The policy has the principle or primary effect of advancing religion by conveying a message of endorsement to elementary school children."

Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based law group that represented the school district, said he would appeal.

"I think the current policy creates an open forum that allows secular as well as religious persons or groups to access the forum to distribute information," Staver said. "The court has clearly misread the First Amendment and the cases regarding free speech."

The parents who sued are Christian but believe religious beliefs should be taught in the home, not school, said Anthony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.

The South Iron district has about 500 students in the grade school and South Iron High School.

Superintendent Brad Crocker was out of the office Wednesday and did not respond to a call seeking comment.

Gideons International, based in Nashville, Tenn., distributes Bibles in more than 80 languages and 180 countries, according to its Web site. A spokesman did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Man told to pay before talking about God
But transit system backs down when free speech issues raised

A Dallas man was told he had to buy a transit system ticket before he could talk about God to passengers waiting at a bus station, but officials quickly backed down when issues of free speech were raised.

The man, Daniel Bailey, is disabled but for two years had peacefully expressed his Christian faith by witnessing to passers-by at a Dallas area transit station, and distributing Gospel tracts, according to the Alliance Defense Fund.

Then officers at the system's West End DART station approached him and told him that a policy change would not allow him to continue witnessing, the ADF said. The officer reportedly told Bailey to either purchase a ticket or leave, so Bailey left, and contacted the ADF.

The organization, a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the truth, wrote a letter to Gary C. Thomas, president of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit, over concerns the situation raised.

"Two years ago, Mr. Bailey received permission from Morgan Lyons with DART to be at the station and distribute tracts and talk to people. After the police … recently told Mr. Bailey that he could not pass out tracts and talk to people about his faith at the station, he contacted Mr. Lyons for clarification. Mr. Lyons responded in an e-mail that the recently passed Code of Conduct applied to prohibit Mr. Daniels from being at the station to pass out tracts and talk to others about his faith unless he was actually waiting on a bus or train himself," the letter, from ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik W. Stanley, said.

"It appears that DART is applying this section of the Code of Conduct to prohibit individuals from exercising their First Amendment right of free speech at DART facilities," he continued. "This prohibition is unconstitutional."

The response from Thomas noted that the Code of Conduct "is not intended to abridge any person's First Amendment rights."

He noted DART has a "right and duty" to regulate its property and operations "to ensure that any expressive activity does not impair the delivery of safe and efficient public transportation services."

But he said DART policy allows Bailey to distribute his message, and there must have been a misunderstanding.

"Please convey to Mr. Bailey that he may continue to hand out his religious material provided he does so in a lawful manner and follows the enclosed policy," he wrote.

"Christians should not be treated as second-class citizens simply because they choose to exercise their faith in public," Stanley said.

"We appreciate the quick and courteous response of DART officials in resolving this matter and are pleased that Mr. Bailey will now be able to return to his activities.

The policy itself requires those involved in "expressive activity" to follow state and federal laws, and avoid distributing materials inside DART vehicles.

Additionally, those people need to have permission from DART, and must not "hinder" passengers, the policy states.

"I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention and I will communicate the above to my staff, including the DART Police," Thomas said.

Bryant High blasted for showing religious film

A Washington-based watchdog group that advocates the separation of church and state has demanded that teachers at Paul W. Bryant High School stop showing students a Christian film about a football team that wins by finding faith in God.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent Tuscaloosa City Schools Superintendent Joyce Levey and Bryant High Principal Amanda Cassity a letter Tuesday saying that showing the movie “Facing the Giants” in class violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Tuscaloosa City Schools spokeswoman Lesley Bruintonissued a statement Tuesday afternoon that said, “The film ‘Facing the Giants’ was shown to two Paul W. Bryant High School classes prior to the semester break. After receiving a complaint regarding the film, Principal Amanda Cassity suspended any further showings until the merits of the complaint can be addressed.”

Bruinton said Cassity was aware of the complaint before classes ended for the holidays, and the film hasn’t been shown since.

“It’s been handled,” Bruinton said, without elaborating.

The letter from Americans United, which was sent by fax and e-mail about 2:20 p.m. Tuesday to Levey and Cassity, came after the organization said it received complaints during the fall semester from people who live in the school district.

Americans United has asked that Tuscaloosa City Schools inform all teachers in the system in writing not to show the film. The organization has also asked for a response by Feb. 15.

The letter is the first formal action Americans United has taken. Details about the complaint were vague because the identity of the person who complained is being kept confidential, said Heather L. Weaver, the organization’s attorney.

Weaver added that the local chapter of Americans United is aware of the situation, but that the national office is handling any possible legal aspects.

“This movie is not educational; it’s evangelistic,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, in a written statement. “Parents and taxpayers expect our public schools to teach, not preach.”

Bryan K. Fair, a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law who specializes in the First Amendment, said any court that was hearing such a case would wrestle with the question of whether showing the movie was an attempt to sponsor a religious activity in a public school.

“I doubt very seriously that the majority of the current Supreme Court would say that the showing of this film is any sort of religious activity,” Fair said, adding that since Chief Justice John Roberts has joined the court, no case specifically involving religion in public schools has come before the court.

University sued again for dissing Christians
Dispute centers on Wisconsin's treatment of student organization

A long-running dispute over attempts by the University of Wisconsin at Madison to discontinue recognition of a student group that provides a Christian ministry on campus has generated a judge's order for the discrimination to stop – again.

According to the Alliance Defense Fund, a second lawsuit was filed against the school after officials allegedly reneged on an earlier settlement that was supposed to bring about the end of the discriminatory actions.

"University officials should recognize the constitutional rights of Christian students just as they do for all other students," said David Hackler, the litigation staff counsel for the ADF. "Unfortunately, University of Wisconsin officials have a long track record of discriminating against Christian students.

"In this case," he said, "they are going back on their word to [the Roman Catholic Foundation] that they would end such discrimination."

The ADF said as a result of a request relating to its newest lawsuit, a federal judge this week ordered the university to halt its discriminatory actions toward the Catholic group and treat it like any other student group while the lawsuit moves forward.

The university had agreed nearly a year ago to a settlement that would resolve an ADF lawsuit filed after university officials refused to recognize the group, claiming members weren't following the school's "non-discrimination" policy. The core of the disagreement involved the Catholic group's requirement that its leaders subscribe to Christian beliefs.

But a new lawsuit was filed Sept. 10 after the university refused to honor the terms of the settlement. In December ADF lawyers filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, and the injunction how has been granted.

"ADF will continue to keep a vigilant eye on public universities to ensure that they abide by the law when it comes to extending religious student organizations the same rights and privileges that other groups have," said Hacker.

The student organization is seeking the same access to student activity fee funding as any other student group, a request that was opposed and rejected by the university because of its allegations the Catholics were violating school "non-discrimination" demands.

"The university seems to play a game of bait-and-switch when it comes to religious freedom on campus," Hacker said. "All UW student groups, including those of a religious nature, are entitled to the same rights and privileges on campus. By denying those rights, university officials are continuing to break the law."

In the first agreement, charges against the school were withdrawn in return for its commitment to refrain from discriminating against Christian students. But in the new claim, ADF attorneys allege the university has imposed conditions on the Catholic organization that are not presented to other student groups.

The foundation is successor to a group that has served more than 50,000 students at the university since it was launched in 1883, officials said.

The dispute arose when the Freedom From Religion Foundation complained to the university about the beliefs of the Catholic student group.

The original lawsuit agreement had called for the Catholic group to be funded with more than $250,000 for the current school year.

City sued for arresting
pastor on sidewalk
Police take just 195 seconds
to detain 'peaceful' Christian

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."

The law firm noted that Holick was "attempting" to express his faith on a public sidewalk outside of an event in a public park that was celebrating homosexual behavior.

According to the records in the case, Holick had contacted the police department a week before the event and expressed his desire to communicate his religious views on the date of the homosex-fest. He was told he couldn't go into Heritage Square Park where it was being held, but was told the sidewalk would be his "friend."

Then on the day of the event, Holick and other church members arrived at the sidewalk outside the event and "immediately" were confronted by about 10 officers. He was ordered to leave the sidewalk or be arrested.

He asked where he could go, and he was told the public sidewalks were off-limits to him, and he could go into a nearby privately owned parking lot, the lawsuit said.

Since that was unreasonable, he refused, and was arrested, the lawsuit said.

The trespassing count later was dismissed at the city's request after officials watched a videotape that revealed the pastor was conducting himself peacefully on a public sidewalk. But when ADF lawyers sent a request to the city asking for assurances that Holick would not be "similarly harassed" at future events, the request was ignored.

"Cities should not be able to silence Christian speech by arresting the speaker, only to later drop the charges after the event is over," said Oster. "Such actions only serve to threaten future speakers and silence the Christian message."

The claim alleges violations of the First and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. WND calls to the city went unanswered yesterday.

"Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction and a declaration prohibiting Defendants from arresting him, or from otherwise restricting his speech, on traditional public fora due to the content and viewpoint of his speech, or because of his religion beliefs," the lawsuit said.

It describes how he "wanted to communicate the gospel message to those persons participating in and attending the Event" and "wanted to attend the Event to build connections with attendees so that he might be able to share the gospel with them later."

However, he never was allowed even to express his beliefs, because he was confronted by police officers "immediately," and within three minutes, 15 seconds had been arrested.

The lawsuit alleged the city's policies and actions were arbitrary and capricious and denied Holick's fundamental rights.

"By forcing plaintiff to choose between abandoning his religious beliefs in order to gain access to speech in the traditional public forum, or abiding by his religious beliefs only to be arrested and prosecuted, defendants have imposed a substantial burden on plaintiff's sincerely held religious beliefs," it said.

WND has reported on a series of such cases, in which Christians are arrested for praying at a homosexual festival, or when they are arrested for nothing more than having a protest sign that is "wider than their torso."

It was in Elmira, N.Y., where police arrested seven Christians who went into a public park where a "gay" fest was beginning and started to pray, faces down, while holding their Bibles.

They were cited for "disturbing the peace," and Assistant Police Chief Mike Robertson told WND that the seven are accused of a "combination" of allegations under that statute, which includes the "intent" to cause a public inconvenience, any "disturbance" of a meeting of persons, obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or taking part in "any act that serves no legitimate purpose."

Another case developed when police in St. Petersburg, Fla., arrested five Christians for carrying signs "wider than their torsos" outside an officially designated protest area at that city's homosexual festival.

St. Petersburg officials, following disturbances at a previous homosexual pride festival, implemented rules governing outdoor events that set aside "free speech zones," where protesters are allowed.

Holick's church earlier was targeted by the Internal Revenue Service for the moral statements he posted on the church's sign.

The notice he got from the IRS warned him about putting his Christian beliefs on the sign, and he responded that he would continue to preach the Word of God. Attorneys said the church has responded to the IRS demands, and has not had further contact yet.

In that case, Holick explained the signs all "are spiritual messages that communicate God's truth, or are directly related to messages in the Bible." He also provided the IRS with a list of dozens of biblical instructions, "to lift up Jesus, to rebuke sin, to save babies, to be honest, to take a righteous stand" and others.

Lesbian suit against Christian school tossed
'No triable issues': Academy's right to expel 2 girls in 'relationship' confirmed

A California judge has ruled that Christian schools can set standards for behavior for their students, and impose penalties if they are not met.

The decision comes from Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gloria Trask, who found "no triable issues" on claims that a Christian school discriminated against two girls because of their perceived sexual orientation, according to a report in the North County Times.

Trask recently dismissed the claims made against California Lutheran High School in Wildomar by the two girls and their parents.

The case developed in 2005 when the girls, members of the junior class, were expelled after school officials noticed behavior by the two that may have indicated a lesbian relationship.

The lawsuit filed by the girls and the parents then alleged the California Lutheran High School Association – which oversees operation of the Wildomar school – engaged in discrimination, invasion of privacy and unfair business practices in its handling and ultimate dismissal of two juniors.

The students were summoned into the office of Principal Gregory Bork, the lawsuit claimed, where Bork "individually and separately interrogated the (students) in a closed room, without the parents' knowledge or consent ... and asked (them) inappropriate and personal questions such as whether they loved one another and were lesbians."

"In such a manner, Bork coerced one of the (students) to admit that she 'loves' the other," a court document stated.

The next day, the parents received a phone call from Bork informing them the board had decided to expel the students. One day later, the parents confronted the principal in person and by phone and were told the two girls could not remain at school "with those feelings."

Bork also wrote a letter to the parents stating "while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ... Such a relationship is unchristian. To allow the girls to attend (Cal Lutheran) ... would send a message to students and parents that we either condone this situation and/or will not do anything about it. That message would not reflect our beliefs and principles."

The students, identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe and Mary Roe, were expelled in September 2005 for "engaging in homosexual conduct in violation of the Christian Code of Conduct, including but not limited to, posing for pictures in suggestive sexual positions."

Lawyers for the students argued the school is not a religious institution but a fee-taking organization.

But they were opposed by other lawyers, from the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund who argued on behalf of the school, because the decision could affect members of the Association of Faith-Based Organizations.

"Christian schools have the right to make admissions and disciplinary decisions consistent with their Christian beliefs," said Timothy J. Tracey, a litigation counsel for the CLS. "To subject Christian schools to liability under the California anti-discrimination laws for expelling students who engage in homosexual conduct flatly violates this right."

"The 14th Amendment protects the right of parents to send their children to a private religious school that shares their religious beliefs," the arguments said. "The United States Supreme Court has long recognized the existence of parents' right to direct their children's education."

"These parents have chosen to send their children to private Christian schools because of the unique Christian mission and values espoused by the schools. Compelling the schools to condone extramarital sexual conduct contrary to their values and beliefs eliminates a primary reason why parents choose to send their children to these Christian schools in the first place – having their children educated and mentored from a distinctly Christian perspective," the court filings said.

The state may govern the "basic requirements" of private schools, through licensing and reporting requirements, but "it cannot unreasonably interfere with the teaching and educational philosophies of such schools," the argument said.

The First Amendment's Religion Clause also prevents state anti-discrimination laws based on moral behavior from applying, the attorneys argued.

Attorney Kirk Hanson, representing the students, said he would appeal the dismissal of the case. He said he'll continue to argue the school is a business and must abide by state discrimination requirements.

"That's (appeals court) where this case would have ended up regardless," Hanson told the newspaper. "Win or lose at the trial level, the case is going to be in front of a court of appeal."

But John McKay, a lawyer for the school, said, "The First Amendment gives Christian schools the right to educate children on the (basis) of Christian beliefs. We're right on the First Amendment (regarding) free association."

On a forums page at the newspaper's Internet site, "Edward" supported the decision.

"It's not right to enroll in a school that has certain defined beliefs and rules, and then decide you don't want to comply," he wrote. "Simply enroll in a different school that closer matches your idealogy (sic). Don't sue to try to make the existing school what you want it to be."

"This was obviously an attack by the 'diversity' crowd on another religious institution," added "Watch out." "They are dead set on destroying any mention of or exercise of religious freedom."

And Peter added, "Think people think …. If you as a parent sign on a dotted line accepting the rules of the private school, then disciplinary action against your son or daughter should be expected when they break the rules. Face the consequences and move on."

1ST AMENDMENT ON TRIAL
Court says states cannot prohibit 'Choose Life'
'Government may not arbitrarily censor viewpoints in open forums'

Advocates for the unborn in Arizona are celebrating a court opinion that concluded the state was not allowed to censor a "Choose Life" message from a program that allows special interest groups to obtain license plates with their slogans, an issue that has been resolved similarly in other states.

The ruling comes from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case argued by the Alliance Defense Fund.

"Pro-life advocates shouldn't be discriminated against for their beliefs," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeff Shafer said. "Today's decision from the 9th Circuit reinforces that if the state opens the door for expression by a class of speakers, it may not then slam the door on those whose messages it prefers be kept from public view."

At issue was a request by the Arizona Life Coalition to a state program that allows specialty license plates featuring various slogans.

The coalition, a group with 100,000 members, applied in 2002 for a specialty license plate with the "Choose Life" slogan. The Arizona License Plate Commission then denied the request, even though specialty plates were granted to other nonprofits such as the University of Phoenix Alumni Network, the Fraternal Order of Police and the Wildlife Conservation Council.

In 2003, the Alliance Defense Fund, working with the Center for Arizona Policy, filed a lawsuit over the issue.

"By denying Life Coalition's application … the Commission ignored its statutory mandate and acted unreasonably in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution," the 9th Circuit ruling said.

"The government may not arbitrarily exclude pro-life viewpoints from forums opened to just this sort of public discourse," Shafer said. "It is our hope that this victory will have a positive impact on similar cases under way nationwide."

The court ruling found that Arizona law states the commission, "Shall authorize a special organization plate if the organization meets [three] requirements."

Those include that the organization must serve the community, the group's name does not promote any specific product or brand name and that the organization does not promote a specific religion or anti-religious viewpoint.

"We recognize that Arizona has a legitimate interest in regulating controversial material displayed publicly on government property," the court ruling said. "Nevertheless, we are mindful of potential constitutional problems when government officials are given unbridled discretion in regulating speech, even in limited public fora."

The court said Arizona has defined the outer limits of its specialty license plate program, "and Life Coalition fits within those statutory boundaries."

"Because abortion-related speech falls within the boundaries of Arizona's limited public forum, and because the Commission clearly denied the application based on the nature of the message, we conclude the Commission's actions were viewpoint discriminatory," the court said.

The Alliance Defense Fund just days earlier had won a similar contest in Missouri, where a federal court judge concluded that state's outline for the approval process for specialty plates was unconstitutional.

That decision ordered Missouri to issue the "Choose Life" license plate, concluding the Department of Revenue officials who approve or reject applications had too much discretion.

"The statute does not provide the Joint Committee with specific standards or guidelines upon which to base their decisions and no explanation is required for a denial of one's application," said Judge Scott O. Wright in that case. "As a result, [the law] is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad."

There, the "Choose Life" slogan was rejected while slogans for an autism foundation, a conservancy group, a cattlemen's foundation and a military support group all were approved.

Father Frank Pavone, the national director of Priests for Life, said the newest ruling from the 9th Circuit is a victory for free speech.

"That the Arizona License Plate Commission tried to censor pro-lifers while allowing other groups to have license plates was clearly discriminatory," he said. "It's reassuring that a federal court has declared that pro-lifers have the same First Amendment rights as everyone else.

"Priests for Life has vigorously promoted Choose Life license plates and urges pastors to work with their people and their state legislators to adopt them," he said.

College reverses condemnation of story
Student journalist originally 'failed' for reporting on actor's Christianity

Officials at Paradise Valley Community College in Phoenix have decided to reverse their earlier decision to deny a certificate to a journalism student because she wrote about actor Kirk Cameron's Christian faith.

The American Center for Law & Justice confirmed that the school had notified the student, Sara Sloan, a degree and certificate she had earlier been denied were "available to be picked up at the college."

The college's earlier decision had denied Sloan the recognition that she had completed the journalism requirements because of her reporting on the Christian faith by which Cameron, the longtime star of Growing Pains, lives.

Astonishingly, the panel members, assembled by her professor, condemned her and then specifically wrote that her work was fine, it was her religion that posed the problem for them.

"I have to say 'No' to Sara," wrote one of the evaluators of her work. "[M]y main problem with [Sara] is that she seems to approach all of her stories from a moralistic or even religious bent …. I think [Sara] has ample skills to find work in specialized publications but if the question were to be put to me to hire her or not, I would have to say not for most publications on the market place," said one.

And a second, specifically noting Sloan's profile of Cameron, who has worked on a number of projects with The Way of the Master, a Christian ministry run by evangelist Ray Comfort, wrote:

"You identify yourself as a Christian in your bio, and that certainly comes through in the bias of this article. . . . I believe it would be a turn-off to any religion editor or reader who wasn't a born again Christian. . . . I would have found a way to make this article relevant and inspirational even to readers who aren't hard-core Christians."

Because the school requires her to get passing votes from six of nine evaluators, the two negative votes left her with five. The ACLJ noted that the Cameron article was the only one in her portfolio of articles that dealt in any significant way with the subject's faith.

Other articles were about actor Hunter Gomez' effort to reduce drinking and driving, a program to reduce the work loads for English faculty members, the opening of a museum in Scottsdale and the college's wireless network.

ACLJ chief Jay Sekulow told WND the case was "one of the most dramatic attacks on student free speech and free press that I've ever seen, and I've been doing this for 25 years."

"They stated the reason she was being rejected was her 'Christian' bias. They didn't like the fact she did the article on Kirk Cameron," he said. "They flat-out said that."

Such problems, however, are growing for university students of faith, because other similar cases are in the works right now for the ACLJ, he said.

The ACLJ got involved when the school notified the student of her "failure," and it sent several letters to the school asking for action on the apparent problem.

"On Jan. 25, 2008, Sara received a letter stating that her degree and her certificate of completion in journalism were available to be picked up at the college," the ACLJ said. "Sara went to the college and was able to pick up both her degree and her certificate. ACLJ Staff Counsel Erik Zimmermann spoke with Sara and her mother, and they were very pleased with this result. They were confident that the ACLJ's letter made the difference in Sara receiving her certificate," the ACLJ said.

A school spokesman, Rod Fensom, said he would look into the situation. He called back later to say the school would not comment.

"Federal confidentiality laws, specifically [the] Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, preclude us from discussing student matters. We must provide this student the same protections we provide to all students under the law," he said.

On the student's web profile, she said she plans to continue her school work at Arizona State University West by seeking a B.A. in communications.

She wrote for the Puma Press, including stints as news editor and religion editor, an assignment she held when she profiled Cameron.

The ACLJ said the negative results originally imposed by the school appeared to be a "denial of a student's First Amendment rights." The organization confirmed the student had earned top grades in every journalism course required for the journalism certificate, and "has been exempted from taking several final exams due to her outstanding grades."

Then she ran into the final requirement for an Occupational Journalism Certificate – a review of her portfolio by a "jury" from nine writers, editors and producers from various media companies assembled by the professor.

The ACLJ sent letters to the school asking about the situation on Dec. 13, 2007, and again on Dec. 28.

It wasn't until Jan. 15 when Sara's "unofficial online transcript" stated she would get the certificate, the ACLJ said. The firm again tried to contact the school, without a response. But the school did send Sara the letter confirming she would be awarded the certificate on Jan. 25.

Hindu chants invocation in Colorado Senate
Now lawmaker suggests 'om' opens door for prayers 'in Jesus name'

A Nevada Hindu who has opened the U.S. Senate with a faith-specific chant now has provided the invocation to open the state senate in Colorado, and a senator is suggesting since "om" has been cited, perhaps prayers "in Jesus name" again should be allowed.

The comments came after Rajan Zed, a Hindu from Reno who is making a series of appearances at state legislatures to promote Hinduism, was allowed to open the Colorado Senate, under the leadership of Senate President Peter Groff, with a Hindu chant of the "om" syllable that, according to his belief system, contains the universe.

Zed also recited the Gayatri Mantra from Rig-Veda, a prayer asking for help to "lead me from the unreal to the real."

Zed was the Hindu who last year was invited by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to offer the first Hindu prayer in the U.S. Senate.

At that time, David Barton, president of WallBuilders, a foundation that researches and promotes the Christian origination of American law and culture, said the Hindu belief in multiple gods contradicts the U.S. motto of "One Nation Under God."

He said it also conflicts with the historic references in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to the Creator.

"We don't know which creator we're talking about within the Hindu religion," he said.

When Zed appeared in Washington his performance was interrupted by three Christians who prayed aloud in the name of Jesus during his chant.

YouTube shows Zed preparing to pray when a clear, loud voice came from the U.S. Senate gallery.

"Lord Jesus, forgive us, Father, for allowing the prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight," said a protester.

The Senate's sergeant at arms was instructed to restore order, but Zed was interrupted again.

"You shall have no other gods before you. … "

Three people were arrested for disrupting the Senate. But WND columnist Judge Roy Moore noted that wasn't the end of the story.

He reported that Ante and Katherine Pavkovic and their daughter Christan were ordered to appear in District of Columbia Superior Court, where a team from his organization, the Foundation for Moral Law represented them.

"When their case was called on Sept. 11, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss all the charges against them. Their simple trust in God's grace had touched the hearts of not only the arresting officers – who commented on what a nice family they were – but also the tough government attorneys in the Washington, D.C., justice system," he wrote.

"The bold actions of the Pavkovic family may serve to remind our esteemed representatives of something they have evidently forgotten: that there is only one true God and, unless our national motto is in vain, it is 'in God' that we and our forefathers have always trusted," Moore wrote. "When a nation embraces apostasy by rejecting God or embracing a false religion like Hinduism or Islam, it is God who renders judgment."

Zed also has led Hindu prayers in the California and New Mexico senates, and already is preparing for visits in Utah, Washington and Arizona, officials said.

"We talk about pluralism in this country and tolerating differences," Ved P. Nanda, an official at the University of Denver's law college, told the Denver Post. "Hindus don't 'tolerate' differences, we celebrate them."

The Associated Press reported Zed read both in Sanskrit and English.

"We meditate on the transcendental glory of the deity supreme, who is inside the heart of the earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of heaven," he read. "May he stimulate and illuminate our minds."

He also sprinkled "holy water" from India's Ganges River around the podium, and finished with, "Om shanti shanti shanti," which he translated as, "Peace, peace, peace be unto all," the AP said.

There were no interruptions during his Colorado appearance, and Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, D-Denver, offered a special invitation to half a dozen members of the Hindu religion to be on the Senate floor.

The AP reported Zed confirmed he hopes to "spread awareness" about his religion.

Sen. David Schultheis, however, told WND he was shocked by the appearance of the Hindu, since rules ban faith-specific references, such as the words "in Jesus name," that many Christian leaders have used in prayers.

"Actually, I was shocked when I walked in there," he said. "I don't know of any Hindus or individuals from India actually in the legislature."

The appearance by Zed was disturbing, he added.

"I think the most troubling thing [is] we have this appearance, and yet the bulk of our population is Christian or say they are Christian, and we are not allowed to mention 'Jesus' in any prayer," he said.

That, he said, puts restrictions on leaders from Colorado's religious community who might otherwise like to lead the Senate in an invocation.

He said perhaps an explanation would be appropriate as to why mentioning "Jesus" in a Christian prayer is "so abhorrent" to legislative leaders in his state.

A website promoting Zed's visits notes that his chants were the first Hindu prayers in both the New Mexico and Colorado senates.

WND previously reported when Zed, who works at a Hindu temple in Reno, led California's senate.

"Om bhur bhuvah svah tat Savitur varenyam bhargo devasya dhimihi dhiyo you nah prachodayat," he intoned in the opening of his three-minute prayer, which was recited in Sanskrit, then English.

"We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds," he translated. "Lead me from the unreal to the Real. Lead me from darkness to Light. Lead me from death to immortality."

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, told the San Francisco Chronicle that it remains a mystery to whom Zed was praying.

"I don't know if he even knows who he's praying to," he said. "We're not opposed to the ability of people to worship their own gods or god, but when it comes to our civil government … it's always been the recognition of the God of the Bible. Every religion is not equal. That's my belief. That's logic."

When the protest was raised to Zed's appearance in Washington, the Hindu American Foundation called for support for Zed from elected officials, and condemned Christian organizations who were critical of the chant.

WND earlier had reported the HAF had published a reporting condemning Christian organizations that promote Christian beliefs on the Internet.

"The proliferation of websites promoting religious hatred is an unfortunate consequence of the universality of access to the Internet," said Vinay Vallabh, the lead author of a report by the foundation.

It specifically named organizations for having Internet "hate sites," such as the Southern Baptist Mission Board, Gospel for Asia and the Minnesota-based Olive Tree Ministries, which aims its ministry at teaching Christians about their beliefs.

"We must vigorously identify, condemn and counter those who use the Internet to espouse chauvinism and bigotry over the principles of pluralism and tolerance," Vallabh said.

Jan Markell, who has been with the Olive Tree Ministries since 1977 and has written eight books and hundreds of articles about Christians and their beliefs, at first wondered why she would be listed among ministries hated by a Hindu organization.

Then she remembered a series of articles warning Christians against participating in yoga, a Hindu form of worship.

"I'm big on it [opposing yoga for Christians]," she told WND. "I talk about it on the radio, and I write about it. And the irony of it all is, like Hindus, we don't want Christians practicing yoga either."

Her site, along with Bible Study Lessons from Antioch, Ill.,;the Christian Broadcasting Network; Christian Answers of Gilbert, Ariz.;Mission Frontiers of Pasadena, Calif.; and many others were identified by the Hindu foundation as Internet "hate" sources.

"This is the first of what the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) hopes will be an annual report on anti-Hindu hatred found on the Internet," said the report, which was from a group that provides "a voice for the 2 million strong Hindu American community."

Another Christian club has to sue for free access to school

A federal lawsuit has been filed against a public school district in Virginia, accusing administrators of discriminating against Christian viewpoints. The suit alleges the district refused to allow a Christian club to use facilities free of charge.

The lawsuit was filed by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia against the Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools. Among the charges, the school board is accused of charging the after-school organization, known as the "Good News Club," a fee to use the building, while not charging other groups such as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver says the case is a classic example of discrimination against Christian views. "Essentially our country was born in the Williamsburg, Virginia, area," he points out. "It was founded upon Christian principles and it permeated not only Virginia but the rest of the country."

Staver finds that ironic. "Yet, the school district there is insisting that it must discriminate against Christian viewpoints, particularly with the Good News Clubs," says the attorney. "Now they allow on the school campus Boy Scouts and other youth-focused organizations, including what they categorize as patriotic organizations, free of charge -- but not the Good News Clubs because they're Christian in nature."

The Liberty Counsel founder says school officials are attempting to justify their actions by pointing to the "No Child Left Behind Act," which requires free use for patriotic organizations. He says the officials are misinterpreting the law.

"They say that Good News Clubs are not patriotic. The fact is [they] are patriotic," he explains. "They teach good character and moral development; they teach respect for each other, for the teachers and administrators, and for this country. I think the actions speak louder than their cover-up words as to their justification for discriminating against Good News Clubs."

Staver says the U.S. Constitution clearly says that Christian viewpoints must receive equal treatment and equal access in the public arena.

Judges: 'Gay' exposure OK for kindergartners
Parents citing religious beliefs vow to take case to U.S. Supreme Court

In a case that could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court, an appeals panel upheld dismissal of a lawsuit by Massachusetts parents seeking to prevent discussion of homosexual families in their children's elementary school classrooms.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday agreed with a judge's decision last year that a school can expose children to contrary ideas without violating their parents' rights to exercise religious beliefs.

"Public schools," wrote Judge Sandra L. Lynch, "are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them."

Lynch reasoned that schools must accept the Massachusetts high court's groundbreaking 2003 decision ruling "that the state constitution mandates the recognition of same-sex marriage."

As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker of Lexington, concluding there is an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

The Parkers' lead attorney, Jeffrey Denner, declared after yesterday's ruling the parents are preparing to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We are fully committed to go forward," he said, according to the non-profit advocacy group MassResistance. "We will continue to fight on all the fronts that we need to."

David Parker said the ruling "will surely embolden and enable the schools even more on this if it's not fought."

"There's going to be an accountability, you can count on it," he said.

The dispute began in the spring of 2005 when the Parkers then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.

The Parkers filed suit against the Lexington school district in 2006 and later were joined by Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, whose second-grader's class was read a story about two princes who become lovers.

In another parents-rights case in Massachusetts, Norfolk Superior Court Judge Patrick F. Brady in December allowed Cohasset Public Schools to move forward with special education for an eighth-grader even though the parents opposed the plan.

MassResistance, which has supported the Parkers, contended Lynch's opinion virtually ignores a major argument made by the Parkers' attorney, Rob Sinsheimer, "that the basic constitutional protections of religious belief are being trampled on by the school."

MassResistance notes Lynch uses the state's controversial 1999 Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework to justify homosexual-oriented "tolerance" lessons in the lower grades, but she "completely ignores the fact that that document was clearly intended as a non-mandatory, informal set of guidelines."

The group points out Planned Parenthood is promoting a bill this year to make the document a formal legal guideline.

MassResistance said that to read the concluding words of Lynch's ruling "is to experience a real sense of the term 'banality of evil.'"

Lynch reasoned that "the mere fact that a child is exposed on occasion in public school to a concept offensive to a parent's religious belief does not inhibit the parent from instructing the child differently."

The opinion said the judges cannot see how the Parker's son's "free exercise right was burdened at all: two books were made available to him, but he was never required to read them or have them read to him. Further, these books do not endorse gay marriage or homosexuality, or even address these topics explicitly, but merely describe how other children might come from families that look different from one's own. There is no free exercise right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the parents are of different gender combinations."

The panel said the Wirthlin's son "has a more significant claim, both because he was required to sit through a classroom reading of 'King and King' and because that book affirmatively endorses homosexuality and gay marriage. It is a fair inference that the reading of 'King and King' was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage. That was the point of why that book was chosen and used."

But the judges also dismissed the Wirthlin's argument.

"Even assuming there is a continuum along which an intent to influence could become an attempt to indoctrinate, however, this case is firmly on the influence-toward-tolerance end," the opinion said. "There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights."

Sex-ed course includes field trip to buy condoms
Parents challenge curriculum targeting children as young as 4th grade

A campaign has been launched by concerned parents and others in Florida where a school board has adopted an explicit sex ed curriculum that includes various how-to lessons for students as young as fourth grade, and in one incarnation proposed field trips for children to purchase condoms and then talk about their experience.

The parents have created the Sex Ed Facts.com website to coordinate their work to oppose the program adopted by the board members of the St. Lucie County school district.

The dispute is similar to a controversy that has been going on in Montgomery County, Md., over a similarly graphic sex-education curriculum adopted by the school board there that teaches homosexuality is innate and provides depictions of "erotic" sex techniques.

Brandon M. Bolling, of the Thomas More Law Center, told Judge William J. Rowan III during a recent court hearing on the legality of the program Maryland law requires that information presented in public schools be supported with evidence, and the teaching that homosexuality is "innate" lacks that support.

He also argued that the lessons required by Montgomery County Board of Education teach students how to use condoms in violation of a state prohibition against material that "portrays erotic techniques of gotcha146."

In Florida, Pastor Bryan Longworth of the nondenominational Covenant Tabernacle has been spearheading the opposition to the local board's adoption of materials drawn from the explicit "Get Real About AIDS" program, and told WND among other issues to be addressed is a state law requiring that sex education be abstinence-based, not condom-based.

Yet, he warned parents, "your child may actually be required to purchase condoms and return to class to discuss the reaction of store clerks."

He said the materials are heavily weighted towards promoting sex for children, in that the program discusses condoms and contraceptives 210 times, but mentions abstinence, the state-mandated foundation for such education, 17 times.

"What's more: In all but one instance, the curriculum immediately follows the mention of abstinence with the mention of condoms or contraception," he said.

Posted online on the campaign website were some of the statements taken directly from the materials that caused alarm for the more than 3,500 area residents who signed a petition opposing the curriculum. Among those that could be published were:

* "Ask them (students) to create two lists: ways in which relationships might change for the better after they've become sexual, that is, when the two people have had gotcha146; and ways in which relationships might change for the worse after they've become sexual."

* "Putting on a condom can be an act of affection and of a commitment by each person to care for the other."

The material also provides instructions for teachers to arrange students into "cooperative teams" and hand out the worksheet called "Point of Purchase."

"Tell students that the object of the activity is for teams to determine how difficult it is to find condoms… When you get to the store, ask and (sic) employee where the condoms are, even if you already know. The idea is for you to describe the response of the employee."

"Remember, this isn't a game. This is a way to get important information to stay safe," the lessons instruct.

The pastor noted that for students as young as fourth grade there is recommended a discussion of explicit ways the AIDS virus is transmitted, with instructions to teachers to then ask students, "if anyone was surprised by the facts."

Janice Karst, a spokeswoman for the district, said the program was adopted "in addition" to the school's regular abstinence-based program in response to community concerns over a high number of HIV/AIDS cases in the county.

"For about a year, members of (a community) roundtable, from the health department and the school district examined several different kinds of curriculum about HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. The one they selected was the only one approved by the Florida Department of Education," she said.

She said there were numerous opportunities for members of the public to comment on the plan, including a weekend forum attended by several hundred people, and the school is giving parents the choice to not have their children in those classes when the materials are discussed.

Longworth, however, said he was appalled to discover the sexual material that students would be presented.

"In teaching this to fourth graders, the school board will rob children of their childhood. I have not met one person who is in favor of teaching sexual content to fourth graders," he wrote.

The school's website noted that Supt. Michael Lannon "believed that the community and parents were informed about the AIDS/HIV epidemic and it was time to do more."

The school district minutes of the board meeting said, "Condom education along with abstinence must be embraced."

Even at that meeting, however, one board member, Troy Ingersol, noted he was uncomfortable with parts of the curriculum and he was troubled by "survey results" and the lack of "community input." He voted against the program.

The votes for the program included those from Kathryn Hensley, Carol Hilson, John Carvelli and Judi Miller, and Longworth noted they were following "the recommendation of Planned Parenthood's Michael Panella."

Longworth said the connection to the nation's largest abortion provider was troubling.

"They're promoting sex. They believe that having sex is a rite of passage for teenagers," he said. "It's pretty that they're targeting, pushing an agenda."

He told WND that opponents were reviewing their options for further protests and objections.

Lawsuit after abortion survivor's speech banned
'We just don't like to encourage discussion of those types of issues in our facilities'

A lawsuit has been filed against the school district in Rapid City, S.D., after a facilities manager refused permission for a community group to use an auditorium to feature the testimony of an abortion survivor.

"We just don't like to encourage discussion of those types of issues in our facilities," the lawsuit says one of the defendants, Ronald Mincks, announced. Mincks at the time was assistant buildings and grounds supervisor.

The dispute is over requests by members of the group Citizens for Life to be granted access to an auditorium for after-school events, just as other community organizations are allowed.

The action was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a law firm that defends the right "to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding and litigation."

"Pro-life groups shouldn't be discriminated against for their beliefs," said Byron Babione, senior legal counsel for the ADF. "They have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else in America.

"The equal access rights of Citizens for Life must be honored regardless of whether school district officials agree with the group's message," he said.

The complaint describes how school district policy, while allowing other community groups to use district facilities for a variety of meetings, twice denied Citizens for Life permission, expressly banning meetings with a religious purpose.

The complaint said Citizens for Life President Allen Carlson in August 2006 asked for permission for the group to meet at Dakota Middle School's auditorium to host a meeting at which Gianna Jessen, a survivor of a saline abortion, would speak.

School officials rejected the request and then refused to comply with an open-records request for documentation about other groups that were granted permission to use the facilities.

Last June, the second request was submitted by Carlson. This time the proposed speaker was Joe Scheidler, national director of the Pro-Life Action League. In July, Carlson got a telephone call from Mincks, who refused the request.

"Carlson asked about filling out additional paperwork, or following other protocols, to obtain permission," the lawsuit said.

"We would deny you anyway," Mincks said, according to the lawsuit.

He said that was because Citizens for Life is "too controversial" for the district.

When Carlson asked Mincks to put the rejection in writing, Mincks told him, "This is something we don't wish to put in writing," the lawsuit said.

"School officials are not permitted to engage in viewpoint discrimination, nor can they continue to stonewall this group," said Stephen Wesolick, an ADF-allied attorney who also is representing Citizens for Life.

Peter Wharton, the superintendent, told WND he couldn't talk about the issue or explain his district's facilities-use policy.

"What we're doing is we're conferring with counsel," he told WND, "looking at what the next appropriate steps are."

The district's website, however, includes a large element of community participation in school events. In fact, it includes a section called Partnership Rapid City, in which such organizations as The Abbey Group, Black Hills Corp., Medical Associates of the Black Hills, Ivanhoe International Center, Casey Peterson & Associations, the Kahler Financial Group and others formally are recognized.

The action seeks an order banning future discrimination by the district as well as attorneys' fees and "nominal damages" for the alleged violations of the First and 14th Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association and free exercise of religion.

Intelligent design costs prof his job
Regents reject tenure request without evidence, testimony

Iowa State University regents, who earlier ruled against accepting evidence or hearing testimony from a professor in a dispute over the school's denial of his tenure, now have turned down his appeal.

The case involves Guillermo Gonzalez, an honored assistant professor of astronomy who has been actively working on theories of intelligent design, an effort that ultimately cost him his job, supporters say. Tenure is roughly the equivalent of a lifetime appointment.

The school has continued to deny the handling of Gonzalez' case was related to his support of ID, even though the Des Moines Register documented e-mails that confirmed Gonzalez' colleagues wanted him flushed out of the system for that reason.

"I think Gonzalez should know that some of the faculty in his department are not going to count his ID work as a plus for tenure," said one note, from astronomy teacher Bruce Harmon, before the department voted against tenure for Gonzalez. "Quite the opposite."

The newspaper reported what was revealed in e-mails was "contrary" to what ISU officials said when they rejected Gonzalez' request for tenure.

And Eli Rosenberg, chairman of the ISU astronomy department, also confirmed to World Magazine Gonzalez's book, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery," played a role in his being rejected.

Now the regents, at a meeting Thursday, voted against his appeal in the case.

"The board of regents would not allow into the record extensive e-mail documentation showing Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure not due to his academic record, but because he supports intelligent design," said Casey Luskin, program officer in public policy and legal affairs for the Discovery Institute, where Gonzalez is a senior fellow.

"Then the board refused Dr. Gonzalez the right to be heard through oral arguments. Does it come as any surprise that now they denied his appeal?" Luskin asked.

"We are extremely disappointed that the board of regents refused to give Dr. Gonzalez a fair hearing in his appeal," said Chuck Hurley, the professor's lawyer. "They say in Iowa that academic freedom is supposed to be the 'foundation of the university.' That foundation is cracked."

"They've denied his due process rights throughout this entire appeal," said Luskin. "This kangaroo court decided its verdict long before today's deliberations even began."

Hurley said the most "disheartening" part of the appeal was that regents refused Gonzalez the opportunity present his case to the board.

"The board of regents had an opportunity to give justice to an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field," continued Luskin. "Instead, they caved in to political pressure and threw academic freedom to the wind."

According to the Intelligent Design website, the theory confirms that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a random, undirected force such as natural selection, which is part of the foundational faith of evolutionists.

Luskin told WND the 7-1 vote against Gonzalez showed there only a single member of the board who was willing to buck the political pressure from the university to "rubber-stamp" the rejection of Gonzalez.

A website highlighting an academic freedom petition in support from the freedom of thought needed by faculty, teachers and students also has been created.

The Discovery Institute said it also had reviewed the e-mail record regarding Gonzalez' teaching, and found "an orchestrated campaign conducted against Dr. Gonzalez by his colleagues, with the intent to deny him tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design of the universe."

As WND reported earlier, Gonzales was one of three members of the ISU faculty denied promotion or tenure of the 66 considered at the time.

The rejection followed earlier opposition to his work because of his acknowledgment of intelligent design. In 2005, three ISU faculty members drafted a statement and petition against intelligent design in the science curriculum that collected 120 signatures.

"We … urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of 'science and technology,' convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray intelligent design as science," the statement said.

Officials with Evolution News, which has reported extensively on the case, earlier said two of the professors linked to the statement were in the astronomy and physics department: Prof. Steven Kawaler, who has linked to the statement on his website, and University Professor Lee Anne Willson, who is married to ISU math professor Stephen J. Wilson, who signed it.

Evolution News also debunked Rosenberg's claim that there was something deficient about Gonzalez's research record.

"You take a look at somebody's research record over the six-year probationary period and you get a sense whether this is a strong case. Clearly, this was a case that looked like it might be in trouble," Rosenberg had said.

"Really?" questioned Evolution News in its commentary. "Was Gonzalez somehow derelict in publishing 350 percent more peer-reviewed publications than his own department's stated standard for research excellence? Or in co-authoring a college astronomy textbook with Cambridge University Press? Or in having his research recognized by Science, Nature, Scientific American and other top science publications?"

In 2004 Gonzalez department nominated him for an "Early Achievement in Research" honor, his supporters noted.

According to Robert J. Marks, distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor, he checked a citation index of journal papers, and found one of Gonzalez' research papers had 153 citations listed; another had 139.

"I have sat on oodles of tenure committees at both a large private university and a state research university, chaired the university tenure committee, and have seen more tenure cases than the Pope has Cardinals," he said. "This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure."

Gonzalez' appeal to ISU President Greg Geoffroy also was unsuccessful.

Nebraska sidewalk witness wins free-speech battle

The police department in Hastings, Nebraska, has been forbidden by a federal court from interfering with Christians witnessing on public sidewalks.

Kevin Pulver just wanted to stand on a public sidewalk adjacent to Hastings College and share his faith with anyone who was interested in listening. But according to Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Nate Kellum, local authorities objected to Pulver's presence and his message.

"He met much resistance from the Hastings Police Department," says Kellum. "They came out there no less than 13 times, coming up with various reasons as to why he could not be there, and finally they threatened him with arrest if he continued to express his faith in public."

The attorney says Pulver was aware his actions might irritate local authorities. "He was sure not to trespass on the private college. He didn't even try to do that," Kellum explains. "He stood in the one place where every citizen is guaranteed a fundamental right to free speech, and that is the public sidewalk. And yet the police officers didn't seem to recognize his rights."

Pulver was eventually charged with disturbing the peace and violating a city noise ordinance, but the court later agreed those charges were "trumped up." "In a very cordial way, he tried to explain that he had a constitutional right to be on a public sidewalk and share his views and ... the police officers simply did not heed that message," explains Kellum. "And so, in order to give Mr. Pulver the freedom which the First Amendment guarantees, he had to be assured of that right through litigation."

The U.S. District Court for Nebraska ordered the City of Hastings to repeal the unconstitutional ordinance that was used to threaten Pulver. That action will guarantee he can share the gospel on public sidewalks without fear of reprisals from police.

Kellum says the quick decision by the court sends a message to other cities that they must respect the free-speech rights of all citizens.

'Philly 5' Christians appeal lawsuit over arrests

Eleven Christians arrested for expressing their beliefs publicly during a so-called "gay pride" festival in Philadelphia several years ago were in court Monday, seeking to have their lawsuit against the city reinstated.

The 11 individuals were arrested in 2004 at Philadelphia's "OutFest," a pro-homosexual event held on public property. The Christian activists were charged with various crimes for quoting scriptures while walking on a public street set aside for the event. Charges were dropped almost immediately against all but five of the Christians, and those five were later found not guilty of all charges.

According to attorney Joseph Infranco, those actions paved the way for a civil suit against the City of Philadelphia and the OutFest participants, claiming that his clients suffered constitutional harm as a result and arguing no one else should be subjected to such actions. "So this is a civil suit now, to make them accountable for their actions -- and filing those criminal charges was part of that," he adds.

Infranco, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, was at Monday's hearing, which asked appeals court judges to reinstate the lawsuit dismissed by the initial civil trial judge. The consensus at that time, he shares, was that the judges were more sympathetic to his clients than to those accused of violating their constitutional rights.

"They got the point," says Infranco, referring to the judges. "They got the point that when somebody goes into the public square and has an event and exercises their First Amendment rights -- [that] when you open such an event to the public, then you have to anticipate that some members of the public who disagree with that speech are going to be present, as well."

According to the ADF attorney, the same would be true if the tables were turned. "If you had a Christian event and you invited the public and it was in a public place ... well, you would have to expect other people would come along who want to express a contrary view," he suggests. "We're not trying to shout them down or anything like that. [But] what you're talking about is both views being expressed, side by side."

Infranco says winning the lawsuit is important to protect other Christians from what he describes as "constitutionally abhorrent" actions against them in the future. "We ... want what's called declaratory relief, so that the court ... says there should not be a repeat of this at a future event," the attorney explains. "It's the most basic form of discrimination because the police did not like the content of the message -- and that's completely inconsistent with the First Amendment."

A decision from the appeals court is expected in approximately two to three months, adds Infranco.

IRS probes minister
for backing Huckabee
'The one thing we want to protect here
is the right to speak on moral issues'

One of the pre-eminent advocacy law firms in the nation, the Alliance Defense Fund, is taking on the defense of a California pastor accused by the Internal Revenue Services of engaging in "political activities" in order to establish firmly the speech rights for pastors to address moral issues from their pulpits, even if those issues also fall within the political arena.

Erik Stanley, a lawyer with the ADF, told WND the complaint against Pastor Wiley Drake, of Buena Park First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., is straight-forward because Drake endorsed a presidential candidate as an individual, not as a representative of his church.

"I think that the IRS doesn't really have anything to stand on," he told WND. "He [Drake] personally endorsed Mike Huckabee and made it clear it was a personal endorsement. They are allowed to do that."

The church had gotten a demand letter on Feb. 5 from Angie Chapman on letterhead of the Internal Revenue Service.

"Because a reasonable belief exists that the Church has engage in political activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status as a church under section 501(a), this letter is notice of the beginning of a church tax inquiry described in IRC section 7611(a)," the letter said. "We are sending it because we believe it is necessary to resolve questions concerning your tax-exempt status as a church…"

"Our concerns are based on information we received concerning an Aug. 11, 2007, press release issued on the letterhead of First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, California. The information we received provides … Pastor Wiley Drake endorsed Republican presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, for the 2008 presidential election," the letter said. The IRS said it also "received" information that Drake also had supported Huckabee on Drake's radio program.

Churches, the letter said, "are prohibited from participating in, or intervening in (including the publication or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. This is an absolute prohibition, violation of which results in denial or revocation of exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

It attached an exhaustive list of questions demanding information from the church about any press releases, their "specific content" and "specific purpose," the names of those who prepared any communications, those who had authority over such communications, their official titles, how many congregants had access to such communications, what costs were involved, communications disseminated "in close proximity to" this dissemination, and other details.

It also demands information whether the pastor or any officer contributed to the Huckabee campaign in any way and access to the church's policy "prohibiting political intervention."

Stanley said the ADF will be responding to the IRS on Drake's behalf, explaining that the endorsement was by Drake as an individual, and that he runs his own radio show where he talked about the endorsement, and the church isn't affiliated with that show or in any way a sponsor.

"It was a personal thing he did," Stanley said.

He said the complaint could be traced back to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which long has been critical of Drake's outspoken Christian perspectives.

"If anybody has been Big-Brotherish it's Americans United," he said. "They got the press release. They were the ones listening to his show, taping it, and sending the tapes of his radio show to the IRS."

He said the complaint was missing a number of key facts regarding the situation.

"I feel very confident the IRS is going to say he [Drake] has a right personally to endorse [a candidate], regardless of what Barry Lynn thinks," Stanley said.

"What he doesn't understand, or he's just overlooking, not everything a pastor does is done on behalf of the church. Pastors are individuals just like other people. Americans United makes it sound like the church was turned into a political machine."

But he said the larger picture is the fear many pastors have about speaking on moral issues that happen to be in the political arena, because of the intimidation factor from groups such as Americans United and the IRS.

"That's the one thing we want to protect here, the rights of pastors to speak freely from their pulpits on issues," he said. "That's a Free Exercise issue, not even the IRS can change that."

"So many pastors have been unnecessarily silent over the years. They're afraid of losing their tax exemptions, so they give in to bullies like Americans United, the IRS, and their prohibition that 'you cannot intervene in political campaigns.'"

"Churches get afraid," he said. "We need to get the message out that pastors are free to talk, to preach about these moral issues, even if it means denouncing a particular candidate for supporting those issues."

"They don't need to be afraid to talk about these issues," he said.

A pastor, he said, needs "to say things that he feels God is telling him to say."

The AU complaint against Drake's church had leveled the accusation of "electioneering."

WND also reported earlier when Wichita, Kan., Pastor Mark Holick's church, Spirit One Christian Center, was targeted by the IRS for the moral statements he posted on the church's sign.

The notice he got from the IRS warned him about putting his Christian beliefs on the sign, and he responded that he would continue to preach the Word of God. Attorneys said the church has responded to the IRS demands, and has not had further contact yet.

In that case, Holick explained the signs all "are spiritual messages that communicate God's truth or are directly related to messages in the Bible." He also provided the IRS with a list of dozens of biblical instructions "to lift up Jesus, to rebuke sin, to save babies, to be honest, to take a righteous stand" and others.

With Wichita the home to the business of George Tiller, one of the world's premiere late-term abortionists, many of Holick's marquee slogans addressed abortion and those, including politicians, who support what the church believes is child-killing.

Those named included Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, an ardent abortion supporter.

Washington pastor says public school is 'going to pay'

Displaying the same tenacity he demonstrated during his injury-shortened career in the NFL, Ken Hutcherson -- now a pro-family pastor in Kirkland, Washington -- is demanding that the pro-homosexual teachers who interrupted a school assembly at which he was speaking be fired.

In January, Pastor Hutcherson was invited to speak at his daughter's high school on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to talk about his personal experience overcoming racism. When Hutcherson rose to speak, teacher George Potratz booed. And at the end of Hutcherson's presentation -- in which he did not mention his pro-family beliefs -- another teacher by the name of Kit McCormick interrupted the assembly to challenge Hutcherson's biblical opposition to homosexuality. According to published reports, both teachers received letters of reprimand for their disruptive behavior.

However, a letter of reprimand will not satisfy Hutcherson, who is asking that they be fired. The outspoken pastor also met with school officials over alleged harassment his daughter has suffered since the incident. "If it was a homosexual student, every one of you would be calling because you think that the gay community would sue you," Hutcherson says he told school administrators.

As previously reported, one of the teachers who booed Hutcherson sponsors the school's Gay Straight Alliance -- and also happens to teach his daughter's advanced placement British literature class. According to the pastor, his daughter has continued to suffer emotional stress in that classroom since the school assembly. But his requests to have the teacher removed from the class have been denied, forcing him to enroll his daughter, who is a senior, in an online class with the University of Washington.

"You can see the arrogance that's going on in our public school system with the agenda of making our schools just so open and available to what the homosexual agenda is all about," he remarks. "I'm absolutely amazed at the stubbornness that we've run into in our public education system, especially with teachers who think that nothing can happen to them."

n addition, says the pastor and father, teachers at the school have approached his daughter -- and on at least one occasion, one of his daughter's friends -- in hopes of discouraging her from attending Gay Straight Alliance meetings in the aftermath of the assembly. They have reportedly advised that her presence causes members of the club to be "uncomfortable."

Hutcherson says the days of Christians just making a little noise and then going away are done. He shares that he told school officials "you are going to have to pay and pay dearly for your decisions in putting my daughter through the amount of stress that you have put her through in the last three weeks."

According to Hutcherson, if Christian teachers had interrupted a pro-homosexual speaker with whom they disagreed, those teachers would have at least been suspended, if not immediately fired. Teachers George Potratz and Kit McCormick say they are planning to appeal letters of reprimand they received for interrupting Hutcherson's presentation.

Pastor opposes 'sex club' at daughter's high school

Ken Hutcherson, a pro-family pastor near Seattle, is objecting to the activities of what he calls a "sex club" in his daughter's public high school -- and to the fact that the club is allotted a whole day on the school calendar to promote its agenda.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson is developing a "history," so to speak, with Mount Si High School in Snoqualmie, Washington. When his daughter's senior class invited the pro-family activist to speak on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, two pro-homosexual teachers interrupted the assembly. Hutcherson then had to remove his daughter from one of those teacher's classrooms because of alleged harassment.

Now Hutcherson is upset because of a poster promoting the Gay Straight Alliance at the school. The poster displays silhouettes of three teenage couples -- one male-female, one female-female, and one male-male -- all embracing in front of a rainbow, as if they are about to kiss. It announces the weekly meetings of the GSA, a teacher-sponsored student group that promotes homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and gender confusion. (Click here to view a larger image of the poster.)

"Why are we promoting a sex club?" asks Hutcherson. "I mean, that's what it is. We are allowing a sex club in our schools, promoting and giving them a day where all of the students have to choose whether they're going to support it or not."

The day to promote the GSA that Hutcherson refers to is the Day of Silence, an annual event during which students are encouraged to refuse to speak to show their solidarity with allegedly persecuted homosexual students. The pastor explains what typically transpires on that particular day.

"What you do is, you have students come to school on the Day of Silence and they've got to choose to wear armbands and be silent because they support the Gay Straight Alliance," he says, "or ... if you don’t stay silent and if you don't wear this arm band, [you're saying] you're against gay rights."

Even though 16 is the age of consent in the state of Washington, students as young as 14 attend Mount Si. That means children who cannot legally have sex can participate in what Hutcherson has labeled a "sex club." The pastor says he is organizing parents and students to oppose the GSA and the Day of Silence. As he points out, no other club in the school is given a whole day to push its agenda.

Support for 'In God We Trust' multiplying
Campaign encourages display of national motto

There have been battles waged in the United States by special interest groups in recent years in their attempts to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and to have the Christian cross at the Mt. Soledad veterans memorial torn down. There's also been, more or less, a constant barrage of attacks on the national motto, "In God We Trust."

But there's also been a group of volunteers working quietly and efficiently to promote recognition of the motto, and their success is evidenced by the several dozen municipalities that already have adopted formal and permanent acknowledgments of that motto.

"Just today I received a message from a veteran back in Indianapolis, delighted with what we're doing, and wanting to be the key person [for this program] in his part of the country," Jacquie Sullivan, chief of the In God We Trust-America campaign, said.

It already has resulted in a long list of California municipalities specifically adopting the national motto as their own, and proudly posting it in their city council chambers.

"The United States of America has much to celebrate," a letter distributed to mayors and council members says. "The freedoms we prize were won through enormous pain and sacrifice and are perpetuated through tremendous courage and vision. Now to help preserve and protect the best of all that America stands for, a volunteer organization, In God We Trust-America, Inc., has been organized… Our mission is to encourage each city in our nation to join in prominently and permanently displaying our national motto, 'In God We Trust,' in every city hall throughout our great state and across America."

Sullivan told WND the volunteers see an importance in promoting patriotism "for the sake of our future generations."

"I think this is also a way of getting back some of what we've lost over the last 50 years," she said. "Love of God and love of country. That's very important. I've been very concerned about those who are wanting and trying to remove God from everything. That is not what our country is about."

Sullivan, a councilwoman in Bakersfield, Calif., started with her own city, and has been working out from there ever since. Nearly 30 California cities now display the motto in their city hall, council chamber or some other prominent location. Westminster, in Orange County, put up the words just last month.

There are opponents, of course. "The role for the government is to be benignly neutral," Peter Eliasberg, of the ACLU, told the Los Angeles Times. "It's not their job to be atheist, but also not to support religion…"

But Sullivan said her campaign isn't tied to a single religion, and Bakersfield's Muslims and Sikhs mostly support her plan too.

"These cases show a lot about the encouragement of cultural literacy and the origins of the American law and public and what the founders valued," Mike Johnson, of the Alliance Defense Fund, told the newspaper. "There's some kind of education purpose to it, a recognition of our history and heritage that transcends a religious purpose."

The organization has a legal opinion from The Pacific Justice Institute, whose chief, Brad Dacus, notes, the "United States Supreme Court has never indicated that governmental expression must be sanitized of all religious symbolism or references.

"To the contrary, the Court has acknowledged that phrases such as 'In God We Trust' serve the legitimate secular purposes of 'solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society,'" he said.

The volunteers noted that Francis Scott Key wrote the words, "and this be our Motto, in God be our Trust," in 1814 during the British bombardment of Fort McHenry, and in 1861, the Supreme Court chief justice noted in a letter to the director of the U.S. Mint that, "The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins."

That was started just five years later, and in 1956, Congress voted to declare "In God We Trust" the national motto.

Town struggles over mentioning Jesus in meeting prayers
'This commission needs whatever divine inspiration it can get'

Deerfield Beach Mayor Al Capellini thought his prayers were answered when he devised a solution to a longtime feud over whether Jesus Christ should be part of invocations before public meetings.

Since September, Capellini has written inspirational verse, modified sacred texts and used prayers sent to him to read aloud before meetings begin. Usually it's nothing too long, maybe four or five lines, without mentioning Jesus.

"This commission needs whatever divine inspiration it can get," said Capellini, a Catholic.

Despite the city's attempts to address the debate, the four-year-long conflict is escalating. Some people want the name of Jesus invoked at the beginning of civic sessions; others prefer a nameless higher power, or even silence.

Capellini says the issue is a distraction. He and his co-commissioners are grappling with a tax shortfall, water shortages, raising water rates and a $30 million expansion of the city's water plant.

"God, whoever he or she may be, understands we have business to take care of," Capellini said. "We can't keep spending time to debate this. This is why we went with my invocations that didn't identify a particular god."

Capellini's good-faith efforts just stirred the pot even more.

Century Village resident Caryl Berner, is in the secular camp. Berner, who has been at every city meeting for four years, supports the mayor, and says her crusade is not about religion.

"I object to clergy who say they are there to pray in the name of Jesus Christ," Berner said. "I go to City Hall for city business, and if I need to pray, I go to a synagogue."

Berner complained to the American Civil Liberties Union, which reviewed two years of Deerfield invocations. The group did not sue after the city stopped bringing in outside religious figures, said Barry Butin, co-legal counsel of the ACLU's Broward County chapter.

Anthony Guadagnino, senior pastor at Christian Love Fellowship Church, thinks clergy-led prayer that identifies Jesus Christ should remain part of municipal meetings.

"I think prayer is a very important part of our government and history in the United States," Guadagnino said. "Prayer matters."

Capellini, who has said that his business affairs that may relate to the city are being investigated by the state attorney, has been told by some residents he will lose votes if he does not resume clergy-led prayers.

"We have a diverse community and sometimes these things can unintentionally offend people and I understand where Caryl might be coming from," Capellini said.

Around Broward, only the Pledge of Allegiance is said in the County Center, as well as in Davie, Hillsboro Beach, Lauderhill, Margate, Oakland Park, Parkland, Pembroke Pines, Sunrise, Tamarac and Weston. Officials sometimes schedule moments of silence in memory of residents or officials. Margate, Oakland Park and Sunrise also regularly hold moments of silence.

In Lauderdale Lakes, officials conduct ecumenical prayer services to pay tribute to disaster victims, most recently in August, when Hurricane Dean struck Jamaica.

Nonsectarian prayers are said before meetings in Coral Springs, Fort Lauderdale, Lighthouse Point, Plantation and Wilton Manors.

"The founding fathers did it, the Congress does it, and we do it," said Plantation Commissioner Jerry Fadgen, where "God Almighty" or "The Father" are mentioned. "Part of our strength comes from our spiritual beliefs."

Jesus or "the Lord" is mentioned during invocations in Dania Beach, North Lauderdale, Pompano Beach and Wilton Manors.

Several years ago Pompano Beach officials heard complaints about sectarian prayers, something that still happens occasionally despite requests by the city clerk to abstain.

"It's habitual and I don't think people are trying to antagonize others," Pompano Commissioner George Brummer said. "We are in many respects still in the Bible Belt. Usually when we have non-Christian clergy, like the Muslim Imam, it doesn't happen. I don't remember him calling upon Allah."

Though the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983 approved nonsectarian prayer during legislative sessions, there are court challenges about prayer in a Georgia county meeting, the Indiana state legislature and a Delaware school board, said Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief in Washington.

"Prayers should be a sacred act, not a political act," Gunn said. "When politicians get involved, you have controversies just like this." Capellini will continue to recite his nonsectarian prayer selections.

"The commission needs some inspiration. It's our meeting and the invocation kind of sets the tone for us and makes us reflect on some points," he said.

"The prayer should unite us rather than divide us as a people, and shouldn't be used as a wedge."

Petitions against gender-bender bill spawn harassment, possible lawsuit

A citizens group in Maryland's most populous county is considering legal action against two transgender activists accused of harassing and intimidating residents taking part in a petition drive to overturn a new law that bars discrimination against so-called "gender identity and expression."

The group Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG) says it has collected far more than the 25,000 signatures of registered voters needed by March 9 to put up for referendum a law in Montgomery County that effectively declares transgender people and transvestites a protected class. CRG and other conservative groups warn the law would allow men confused about their gender to use public locker rooms and restrooms designated for females.

CRG spokeswoman Michelle Turner says two transgender activists approached a number of petition gatherers and signers last week and began harassing them at Montgomery County grocery stores, "telling them that they had to leave the area, that the signatures were illegal, and just making folks very uncomfortable with the environment and what was going on."

According to Turner, one of those individuals is a senior staff member with Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg, who is the chief sponsor of the bill. "So we've got a concern here," she explains, "especially with a [possible] civil rights violation by a government employee."

Turner says in addition to yelling invectives at the petitioners, the transgender protesters complained to store managers about the presence of the petition drive. The CRG spokeswoman notes that one of the threats against the petitioners, which can be viewed on the popular website YouTube, was issued by a member of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Steering Committee.

"We are asking those who were affected by the harassment to write their statement and to meet with our attorneys," she states, "and based on those statements -- and of course, the video that we have of the one senior staff member harassing our petition-gatherers -- we are more than likely going to look into possible legal action against at least this one individual."

Councilwoman Trachtenberg declined a request from OneNewsNow for an interview.

Million$ to pro-homosexual groups bad news for Christians, says activist

Pro-family activist Peter LaBarbera warns that a $65 million endowment given to several groups that promote the homosexual lifestyle will be used in their efforts to "criminalize" Christian opposition to their agenda.

The Pride Foundation of Seattle announced on Sunday that Ric Weiland -- one of the first five people to work at software giant Microsoft -- has left $19 million of his estate to the homosexual activist group, and an additional $46 million for the Foundation to distribute to ten other pro-homosexuality groups, including the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Network, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

Weiland, who retired in 1988, committed suicide in 2006 at age 53 after a long struggle with depression and homosexuality.

Pointing to Weiland's bequeathal, Peter LaBarbera with the conservative group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality says activists pushing the homosexual lifestyle are more committed to their version of evangelism than most conservative Christians are to speaking the truth in the public square.

"Already the pro-homosexual movement outspends the pro-family movement specifically on the issue of homosexuality by a huge factor, and this is only going to make it worse," he laments.

LaBarbera says if they are out-funded 50- or 100-to-1, pro-family groups cannot compete in a public policy battle against homosexual activists. "I think it's time for pro-family people who believe that homosexuality should not be celebrated or turned into a civil right in our law ... it's time for some of them to step up to the plate and fund pro-family organizations to deal with this juggernaut that we see coming at us," he urges.

In addition to winning the fundraising battle, says LaBarbera, the homosexual movement is winning the battle for young hearts and minds as well -- which he calls "pretty scary."

"ecause what you're doing is creating a financial incentive for students to publicly declare their homosexuality at a young age," he explains. "And when you throw money in the mix, you're encouraging students to declare their homosexuality; you're promoting homosexuality among young people -- as if they needed it with all the pro-gay messages in our culture. I think it's just a very sad thing."

LaBarbera says homosexual activists are winning the culture war against their opponents not only because they are better funded, but also because they are singularly focused, while pro-family groups are fighting a variety of different issues, including abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

School Board to Pay in Jesus Prayer Suit

A Delaware school district has agreed to revise its policies on religion as part of a settlement with two Jewish families who had sued over the pervasiveness of Christian prayer and other religious activities in the schools.

One family said it was forced to leave its home in Georgetown because of an anti-Semitic backlash.

The settlement, which was approved Tuesday, includes payments to the families that both sides would not disclose. Although the settlement resolves many complaints in the suit, against the Indian River School District, the parties are proceeding with litigation over the school board practice of beginning its sessions with prayer.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants said their clients were satisfied with the settlement. On local blogs, the anger many people felt toward the families for protesting Christian prayer at school events has flared anew.

Mona Dobrich, 41, whose family was a plaintiff in the suit, said such a furious reaction had exacted a profound toll on her family and might indicate that the settlement would alter little on the ground.

“I feel that it is a good settlement because the rules are out there,” Mrs. Dobrich said in a telephone interview, referring to new policies the board has agreed to adopt. “Do I think life is going to change in Sussex County or all the other Sussex Counties in the country? No.”

Mrs. Dobrich, an Orthodox Jew, grew up in Sussex County. Though often the lone Jewish student in school, she said, she did not have problems with Christians or others. For years, while her daughter, Samantha, now 21, attended local schools, Mrs. Dobrich said, she listened to Christian prayers at school potluck dinners, award dinners and meetings of parent-teacher groups.

At Samantha’s high school graduation in 2004, a minister’s prayer proclaiming Jesus as the only way to the truth nudged Mrs. Dobrich to ask the school board to consider more generic and less exclusionary prayers, she said.

As news of the request spread, many local Christians saw it as an effort to limit the free exercise of religion, residents said. Anger spilled onto talk radio, in letters to the editor and at school board meetings attended by hundreds of people carrying signs praising Jesus.

In the settlement, the district did not concede that it had violated the First Amendment through its practices, said its lawyer, Jason Gosselin. The board approved the accord unanimously.

It mandates that within 30 days the district has to amend its religion policy to clarify what practices are constitutional. A detailed list of “real world examples” are to be sent to staff members and parents, including situations like prayer before sports events and the distribution of religious materials at schools.

The accord stipulates that school officials may not organize prayer at graduation. People will also be able to complain anonymously about violations about religious liberty or any other policies.

“I hope that the publication of these policies, training and education about them means there will be compliance in the district and things will get better,” said Thomas J. Allingham II, the plaintiffs’ lawyer.

The second family in the suit chose to remain anonymous. The family has remained in Sussex County.

Mrs. Dobrich’s decision to leave her hometown and seek legal help was made after a school board meeting in August 2004 on the prayer issue. Hundreds showed up to protest her position.

Her son, Alex, then 11, had written a short statement that said in part: “I feel bad when kids in my class call me ‘Jew boy.’ I do not want to move away from the house I have lived in forever.”

After the family received threats, Mrs. Dobrich said, she and Alex moved to Wilmington. Her husband, Marco, stayed in his local job to make sure that the family had health insurance.

They sold their house. But rent and expenses in Wilmington consumed their money.

Samantha dropped out of Columbia University because of the financial problems. Alex, who had attended public school, did not fit into to the Orthodox day schools he was attending and left, his mother said.

The financial settlement, which will be paid by the district’s insurer, will pay off the debt that the Dobriches accrued as they moved. The family has settled in Dover, Mrs. Dobrich said.

The Dobriches tried once to take Alex back to live in Georgetown and understood that they could not return.

“We tried to have Alex live with my sister in Georgetown,” Mrs. Dobrich said. “Alex was in the yard, and some kids came up and said, ‘There’s that boy who’s suing Jesus.’ ”

Prayer warriors at 'gay' fest on trial
Police told Christians they had no speech rights in public park

A trial is scheduled to begin today in Elmira, N.Y., and lawyers for the defendants say it will be a test of whether the First Amendment affirmations of freedom of speech and freedom of religion still are valid in the United States.

"Choosing to exercise your First Amendment rights in a public place is not a crime," Joel Oster, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund said. "The government has no right to arrest citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights in public."

At issue is the arrest of several Christians at a "gay pride" event is 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.

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.

However, an Elmira police sergeant had told the group they were banned from the park. They were not allowed to "cross the street, enter the park, or share their religion with anyone in the park," according to the ADF.

The group's members later were arrested and accused of "disorderly conduct."

"It seems oxymoronic to say that by walking silently in a public park, with heads bowed, these people somehow disturbed the peace," Oster said. "From the sit-ins of the 1960s to today, courts have repeatedly ruled that the police cannot arrest those who peacefully express their message in public places."

While the facts of the case make it seem relatively minor, the ADF said the issue is nothing less than the United States' freedoms of speech and religion.

"If this violation of these Christians' rights is allowed to stand, the First Amendment rights of all people of faith are in jeopardy," the ADF said.

When the Christians were arrested, officials with Elmira justified their actions to WND.

Assistant Police Chief Mike Robertson told WND that the members were accused of a "combination" of allegations, including the "intent" to cause a public inconvenience, a "disturbance" of a meeting of persons and obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

He also said at the time that the accusations would include taking part in "any act that serves no legitimate purpose."

Raven had told WND his group assembled to pray for three hours the night before Elmira's "pride" festival in promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.

"We have a legal right to be at an event held in a public square. We're not a hate group," he said. "We're Christians and we're going to be there to pray."

He said he contacted police, who told him he had no free speech rights in the public park.

"The female officer, she said, 'You're not going to cross the street. You're not going to enter the park and you're not going to share your religion with anybody in this park,'" he told WND.

"When she said that, for the first time in my life as a Christian, I felt now my freedom of speech is threatened or challenged," he said. "I was being told I could not share my religion with anybody in that park."

Raven said he told the officer "she was violating the Constitution that she had sworn to uphold, and she was very agitated and adamant, and couldn't look me straight in the eye."

Raven asked for the justification for such a threat and was not given a response.

He said his team of Christians then went into the park, and they were arrested within three or four minutes.

He said if the situation is left unchallenged, the city of Elmira will be in the position of being able to control the content of people's messages in a lawful assembly – or even thoughts if they are nearby.

"We didn't say boo to a goose, still we were arrested," he said.

The local newspaper reported the arrests came just "moments" after Elmira Mayor John Tonello delivered a speech "celebrating diversity."

And the actions prompted some immediate criticism from newspaper readers.

"I was appalled and disgusted by the gay stories strewn through the paper. What was even more disturbing was the way the city acted. Since when is it illegal to sit on the ground in a public park and recite Bible verses? Are they not protected by the same Constitution that allows gay people to have their gay pride event. These Bible thumpers had their constitutional right to free speech and assembly trampled on by the city. They should not have been arrested," said Kevin Raznoff.

Robertson told WND the Christians "certainly" have a right to assemble, but not on public property when there's an "organized" event there. Asked repeatedly about how the "disturbance" statute relates to First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, he did not answer.

"Obviously, they caused a disruption to an event that was taking place," he said.

But Raven confirmed to WND the Christians did not approach a single person, did not speak to anyone and did not even make any audible statements until after they were arrested.

Greece sued over Town Board prayers

A church-state watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against the town of Greece over prayers offered at Town Board meetings.

In the lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, Americans United for Separation of Church and State claims the Greece Town Board is flouting the First Amendment by opening public sessions with explicitly Christian prayers.

"This lawsuit strikes at the heart of our Constitution, which requires government to refrain from preferring any religion over others," said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United in Washington, D.C. "That's particularly important with legislative bodies, which are charged with representing all their constituents, not just those who share the majoritarian faith."

The issue came to light last June, when the Genesee Valley Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter asking the town to halt its practice of opening board meetings with sectarian prayers.

The ACLU got involved after some area residents who had attended board meetings complained about pre-meeting prayers that invoked Jesus Christ.

Americans United sent a similar letter in July.

Responding to the ACLU's letter, Greece Town Supervisor John Auberger said in June that it was the town's position that it was not advancing any particular religion or giving preference to one faith over another. He said the town would continue its practice of inviting Greece clergy to offer a prayer before board meetings and would not censor prayers.

He stood by that on Thursday.

"For over 10 years we have started our Town Board meetings with a prayer from local clergy and private individuals representing a variety of faiths," he said in a written statement. "The opportunity to say a prayer at our meeting is available to any Greece resident. We do not control the content of the prayers given, nor do we place restrictions or guidelines on these prayers. It is our intention to continue this practice."

Generally, Greece officials invite local clergy to offer the pre-meeting prayers, rotating through a published list of religious organizations in Greece. According to the lawsuit, that list of clergy includes 37 people, all of whom are Christian.

Khan said that of 44 Greece meeting prayers reviewed by her group, only one was offered by a non-Christian. And, she said, the review showed that the vast majority of prayers delivered before meetings since 2004 were explicitly sectarian.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that governmental bodies may open their sessions with prayer, but only if the prayer is nonsectarian and does not reference a particular deity or the language and symbols specific to one religion.

The Americans United lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of Greece residents Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway, seeks to have the court declare that Greece's current practice violates the Constitution and issue an injunction prohibiting sectarian prayer before the board meetings.

According to the suit, Galloway is Jewish and Stephens is an atheist, and both object to, are offended by and feel "unwelcome at board meetings because of the town's alignment with Christianity through the board's persistent presentation of Christian prayers."

Attempts to reach Galloway and Stephens for comment Thursday afternoon were unsuccessful.

The suit also seeks "nominal" damages for the plaintiffs.

Christians ordered to pay
big bucks – for praying!
Lawyer plans appeal of convictions
for disorderly conduct at 'gay' fest

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.

According to the newspaper report, Police Sgt. Sharon Moyer told the court she warned Julian Raven that his rights at the event were limited.

He earlier said she had told him not to cross the street, go into the park or talk to anyone.

"He said he was there to preach the word of God," Moyer told the court, the newspaper reported. "I explained he was welcome to be there (at the festival), but he would not be allowed to confront the participants."

She accused the street preacher of being antagonistic.

Raven, however, said it was Moyer who was "aggressive from the get-go" and said her orders amounted to a deprivation of his rights.

"It seems oxymoronic to say that by walking silently in a public park, with heads bowed, these people somehow disturbed the peace," Oster said of the case earlier. "From the sit-ins of the 1960s to today, courts have repeatedly ruled that the police cannot arrest those who peacefully express their message in public places."

The ADF said the issues are no less than the freedoms of speech and religion.

"If this violation of these Christians' rights is allowed to stand, the First Amendment rights of all people of faith are in jeopardy," the ADF said.

When the Christians were arrested, officials with Elmira justified their actions to WND.

Assistant Police Chief Mike Robertson told WND that the members were accused of a "combination" of allegations, including the "intent" to cause a public inconvenience, a "disturbance" of a meeting of persons and obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

He also said at the time that the accusations would include taking part in "any act that serves no legitimate purpose."

Elmira City Judge Thomas Ramich's conclusion found that in order to prevent participants in the "gay" festival from being upset, the city was correct to arrest the Christians.

The newspaper reported he called Raven reckless for even going to the park.

The prosecutor, Robert Siglin, said the city was concerned for public safety, and that's why the Christians were arrested. During closing arguments he said speech freedoms don't matter when "public order" is an issue.

Ten Commandments monuments challenged
Ruling creates way for stone tablets with competing beliefs

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns a ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, children playing in parks soon could be tripping over a monument that lauds the principles of "psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, cause and effect, and gender."

The American Center for Law and Justice says it has filed additional information with the court in a dispute over such monuments on public land, which resulted from demands by an organization called "Summum" to be allowed the post its principles wherever any other monument, such as a monument to the Ten Commandments, has been erected.

That principle was endorsed by the appeals court in a consolidated case involving individual disputes in Duchesne, Utah, and Pleasant Grove, Utah, and officials with the ACLJ warn there could be huge ramifications if it is left unchanged.

A Statue of Tyranny in New York Harbor, or memorials to Adolf Hitler, King George the 3rd and others all would be possible, they said.

"It's very scary," Frank Manion, of the ACLJ told WND earlier. "The Minutemen in Massachusetts? We need a Redcoat. A George Washington statue? Why not George the 3rd. A Holocaust memorial? How about a Hitler memorial?"

The U.S. Supreme Court still hasn't determined whether it will hear and rule on the situation, but the ACLJ, which specializes in constitutional law, filed its documents in reply to a request from Summum that the court not hear the case because it has the ruling it desired..

The 10th Circuit found that Summum, or any other group, could erect any monuments they choose if there already is another monument on the grounds of the park or whatever area is in question. Many city halls, parks and other locations already have Ten Commandments monuments that have been donated over the generations.

The ACLJ said the Ten Commandments monuments are the real targets of the legal actions, because under the 10th Circuit decision, cities and other governments would be faced with the decision of allowing anything to be posted, or removing the Ten Commandments monuments. Lawyers have said a probable outcome in many cases would be orders to remove existing monuments.

"The Supreme Court is faced with a dramatic opportunity: preserve sound precedent involving the well-established distinction between government speech and private speech – or permit a twisted interpretation of the Constitution to create havoc in cities and localities across America," said Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the ACLJ.

"We're hopeful the high court will take the cases and correct a troubling decision that would ultimately force local governments to remove long-standing and well-established patriotic, religious and historical displays. The lower court decisions miss a key distinction between government speech and private speech. The government has to be neutral toward private speech, but it does not have to be neutral in its own speech. The 10th Circuit confused this rule when it said private parties have a First Amendment right to put up the monuments of their choosing in a city park, unless the city takes away all other donated monuments."

The ACLJ, which has worked on the case with the Thomas More Law Center, contends that the Constitution "does not empower private parties to force permanent displays into a park, crowding out the available physical space and trumping the government's own vision" for the parks.

"In the Duchesne case, even an attorney for Summum admitted to the federal district court that its position could lead to bizarre results. Summum's attorneys told the court that if a city park is required to display monuments contributed by all comers, the city park may well end up looking like a cemetery with many, many monuments," the ACLJ said.

Under Summum's theology, adherents believe the first set of stone tablets Moses received on Mt. Sinai contained its seven aphorisms "made by a divine being."

"The first set of stone tablets was not inscribed with the Ten Commandments. Rather, they contained aphorisms of a Higher Law that held very profound and deep meanings," the organization's website says.

The group believes Moses "had been initiated into an understanding of the inner, esoteric source" of those aphorisms, but when he "observed the immature behavior and attitude of the Israelites" he realized they could not understand them too.

"So Moses destroyed the stone tables and revealed the aphorisms to a select few."

The law firm warned earlier: "In 1886, the United States government accepted from the people of France a donation of a 151-foot tall colossal statue called "Liberty Enlightening the World. Since that time, the government has displayed this Statue of Liberty in a traditional public forum in New York Harbor.

"For years, demonstrators with messages to deliver have assembled, handed out literature and otherwise expressed themselves at the site subject to certain regulations of the time, place and manner of their expression. But it probably never occurred to any such demonstrators that they enjoyed a constitutional right to insist that the government allow them to erect their own 151-foot tall statue or monument setting forth an alternative message to that conveyed by Lady Liberty," the law firm warned.

"Under the flawed private speech jurisprudence of the panel in this case – there exists no principled basis upon which the government could turn down for permanent display on Liberty Island a donation of a 'Statue of Tyranny,' or, perhaps, a new copper colossus bearing the message 'Pay No Attention to the Lady With the Torch – the Golden Door is Now Closed,'" the legal briefs argue.

Preacher on trial for ministering in 'Witch City'
Disorderly conduct count pending over street message
Posted: March 07, 2008
9:21 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A "Witch City" trial is scheduled Monday for a street preacher who was arrested and accused of disorderly conduct for expressing his belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ on a public street in Salem, Mass., on Halloween night in 2007.

"Michael [Marcavage] is guilty of nothing more than preaching the Gospel," said Ben DuPre, an attorney with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore's Foundation for Moral Law, who is representing Marcavage.

"The city of Salem does not have the right to arrest Mr. Marcavage simply because his religious message is not welcome there. The police should have been protecting Mr. Marcavage's right to speak instead of targeting him for the Christian content of his speech. Preaching the Gospel is not disorderly conduct, even on Halloween night," he said.

Moore's organization, a religious-liberties legal group, is defending Marcavage at trial because the prosecutors still insist his calm delivery of a biblical warning against sin was considered disorderly conduct, even though other boisterous behavior involving others at the same time was not halted.

Marcavage earlier had been charged with using an amplified megaphone to deliver the message of love and hope, but that charge was dropped after lawyers documented his arrest at 8:30 p.m. and pointed out that Salem laws allow such amplification until 10 p.m.

"Halloween night in Salem is like Mardi Gras in New Orleans," DuPre told WND. "It's a big sin-fest. That's, of course, why Michael went there. He feels called to deliver the message of the Gospel."

The city boasts on its own website: "Of course, Salem has become known as The Witch City! The Salem Witch Museum , the Witch Dungeon Museum and The Witch History Museum take you back in history to 1692, yet, present-day popularization of the witchcraft hysteria doesn't reveal anything about the large number of modern Witches living in Salem today."

It was clear that police "just wanted to shut him down," DuPre continued. "He [Marcavage] tried to get an explanation from them. He has a right to preach in Salem."

He said while the sermon may not have been welcomed by some in the crowd, such speech is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect.

The officers arrested him by grabbing his megaphone and throwing him to the ground, the video reveals.

Marcavage, whose Repent America website calls for sinners to turn from their ways and follow God, describes his work as evangelizing and "zealously labor[ing] to further the Kingdom of God."

He was one of the original Philadelphia 11 team whose members preached the Gospel at a homosexual festival and were arrested, only to be cleared later.

He also is challenging speech restrictions imposed by the National Park Service at the Liberty Bell Center in Philadelphia, which houses the Liberty Bell, the artifact from American history that rang to announce the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence and is inscribed with "Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof," a biblical quotation from Leviticus 25:10.

"We were speaking on the issue of abortion being tolerated in this nation, generally how abortion is simply a representation of how wicked our nation has become, and the need to repent for sin in our own lives," he told WND of the Philadelphia situation. He referenced the loss of liberty by the unborn who are aborted, he said.

WND also reported just a week ago on an appeal planned on behalf of a team of four Christians convicted of disorderly conduct for praying at a "gay" festival in Elmira, N.Y.

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.

"Choosing to exercise your First Amendment rights in a public place is not a crime," Oster said just before going into the trial.

Christian librarian takes
'gay' profs to federal court
Accused of sexual harassment for recommending
'Marketing of Evil' as required university reading

A former librarian at Ohio State University-Mansfield who was accused publicly of "sexual harassment" and derided in obscenity-laden e-mails exchanged among faculty members – just for recommending students read the best-selling book "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian – has sued the school and faculty members, alleging they violated his 1st and 14th Amendment rights.

The federal case was filed yesterday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio by a lawyer representing Scott Savage, a devout Quaker and formerly the head of Reference and Instructional Services at Bromfield Library on Ohio State University's Mansfield campus.

Savage took a leave of absence and later said he was forced into resigning because of the virulent reaction from homosexual faculty members after he suggested the book be included in a required reading list for freshmen.

In a case that made national headlines, Savage was condemned publicly by a 21-0 faculty vote on March 13, 2006, to be formally investigated for "sexual harassment" after several professors, including two who are openly homosexual, objected to the librarian's having recommended "The Marketing of Evil." Subtitled "How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom," chapter one exposes the marketing strategies and tactics of the "gay rights" movement.

Included as defendants in Savage's action are Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee; Nancy K. Campbell, a human resources officer; T. Glenn Hill, a consultant; members of the university's board of directors, and Christopher Phelps, Norman W. Jones, James F. Buckley, Hannibal Hamlin and Gary Kennedy, who teach on the campus.

Also named as a defendant is former Ohio State President Karen A. Holbrook, whom Savage described as allowing the false accusations against him to be pursued.

As WND reported previously, one of the homosexual professors, J.F. Buckley, in a March 9, 2006, e-mail, reacted this way to Savage's recommendation of Kupelian's book: "As a gay man I have long ago realized that the world is full of homophobic, hate-mongers who, of course, say that they are not. So I am not shocked, only deeply saddened – and THREATENED [sic] – that such mindless folks are on this great campus. ... You have made me fearful and uneasy being a gay man on this campus. I am, in fact, notifying the OSU-M campus, and Ohio State University in general, that I no longer feel safe doing my job. I am being harassed."

The unprecedented formal attack on Savage, as well as a threat of a legal counterattack by the Alliance Defense Fund, finally ended when OSU backed down and informed Savage he was not guilty.

But the lawsuit outlines how the professors and school, despite failing to uphold the accusations, continued to conspire to attack and damage Savage.

"What we found was an incredibly concerted effort on their part, long after the complaint cleared me, to try and get me fired, otherwise harass me, to try and turn staff, non-faculty members, there against me, all quite openly," Savage told WND.

And besides the damage to his career, he told WND that the impact on freedom of speech could be huge.

"Anyone at Ohio State, faculty or students for that matter, are in danger," he said. "You look at how kids spontaneously break out into debates over any number of subjects. Now at Ohio State University, if somebody defends Christian marriage, they might be hit with a sexual harassment charge."

"Look at what happened to me. Who in their right mind would utter so much as a peep?" he said.

He said his goal is justice, but doesn't know if that's possible.

"Justice would have occurred if the university had honored my counterclaim and admitted these professors falsely accused me. That would have been justice. But two things need to happen. The professors need to be completely exposed and brought to account for having done that to me. And the university needs to change its policies so this stuff doesn't happen again," he said.

A spokeswoman in Gee's office at the university took a message but refused to respond to WND's requests for comment, and a message left with Holbrook, who now is vice president for research and innovation at the University of South Florida, generated only a response from an assistant who asked questions about the lawsuit.

Savage's attorney, Tom Condit, told WND the scenario is a case of homosexuals "posturing" themselves as victims, then making "aggressive" demands against Christians.

"Scott Savage never threw his religion around at these people," he said. "But Christians are the ones who are willing to stand up to these folks."

"They demand not just tolerance, but approval," he said. "Scott never said one thing as to his opinion as to homosexuality. He recommended a book that suggested the homosexual lobby is marketed in a slick way."

Condit said the case earlier was filed in state court, but since it addressed constitutional issues also needed to be handled in a federal court.

Hamlin, in one e-mail, exhorted his colleagues to simply "refuse to allow the situation to be cast in terms of freedom of speech," and in another recommended an official complaint be drawn up against Savage.

In an e-mail from Jones, he advised the library manager that he would withdraw from using the facility because of Savage, generating a response from the library manager that such a "personal attack" was greatly disturbing to her.

It was Buckley who unleashed an obscenity-filled diatribe on the subject, according to copies of e-mails accompanying the lawsuit.

"What the G-- d----- f----- h--- kind of homophobic s--- h--- is this?" he ranted. The e-mails document how faculty members first talked about changing Savage's mind, then reprimanding, then censuring, and finally getting rid of him.

In still another e-mail, Jones complained that it was inappropriate for a librarian to dispute his judgment when he pronounced an opinion. Savage also is variously described as a "troll" and "virulent parasite."

Phelps discussed how "dangerous" it was to let Savage know what the faculty was planning to do, and Jones at one point said he would not participate in a meeting to discuss the situation unless there was "no public record."

The lawsuit explains it simply: "This action arose because Plaintiff Scott Savage dared to express an opinion and recommend a book that was rooted in Christian morality and therefore offended the pro-homosexual faculty at OSU-Mansfield."

His recommendations came after he agreed to serve on the First Year Reading Experience Committee to choose books freshmen would be required to read. "At the committee's first meeting, several books were proposed that carried a leftist perspective on history, culture, or politics," including authors such as notorious atheist Richard Dawkins, the lawsuit said.

cont'd

Each of those book titles was e-mailed to committee members, accompanied by a "brief Amazon.com" description. Savage responded with the comment that the books were "polarizing" and suggested an alternative.

Several professors, including Jones and Hamlin, immediately attacked his comments and Hamlin specifically suggested the purpose of the students' reading assignment was to oppose "Christian fundamentalism."

He commented, in light of Savage's Christian beliefs:

Furthermore, I think the university can afford to polarize, and in fact has an obligation to, on certain issues … I would say polarize away … Certainly this may offend some students who come from [a Christian fundamentalist] background or hold such beliefs. But welcome to the secular university…

Savage then responded with suggestions for "The Marketing of Evil," David Horowitz' "The Professors," Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis," and Sen. Rick Santorum's "It Takes a Family," including Amazon.com descriptions.

Jones immediately condemned "The Marketing of Evil" as "homophobic tripe," Savage defended his academic freedom to suggest it, and Jones responded with an attack on Savage to his supervisor.

Then Buckley, who was not on the committee, sent an e-mail to all Mansfield faculty and staff claiming he felt "threatened" and "harassed" by Savage's book recommendation, sending the case spiraling into a formal sexual harassment complaint against Savage.

Savage in April 2006 received a letter from the school noting he was not guilty of discrimination or harassment, but Hill followed with a defense of the accusation.

"In a series of e-mails and communications dating from immediately after their public exposure in early April 2006 and continuing to at least the end of May 2006, those five OSU-Mansfield faculty members continued to conspire to drive Mr. Savage from his position …," says the lawsuit.

"Defendant faculty members were gearing up a campaign to further harass Mr. Savage and to make his work in the library impossible," it adds.

After Savage had been cleared, Phelps, the lawsuit says, still told the university provost the librarian "is an acknowledged advocate of bigotry."

"Not only did he sent e-mails to FIRE but he has a very intimate relationship with WorldNetDaily, a vituperous and rabid web site …," Phelps continued.

Savage then took a leave of absence because of the "extreme emotional distress that was the direct result of Defendants' false and defamatory accusations …," and eventually felt forced to resign, the lawsuit said.

The result was a series of violations of Savage's constitutional and statutory rights, including freedom of speech and academic freedom, the lawsuit charges. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief ordering Savage's reinstatement "to a library position other than his former position at OSU-Mansfield," as well as policy changes to prevent their use in order to "harass and punish constitutionally protected speech and academic freedom."

Savage has written two books on his faith: "A Plain Life" and "The Plain Reader."

Prosecutor accused of spying on church
Lawsuit alleges he also led police raid on worship band

The prosecuting attorney for Waterford Township in Michigan has been accused of spying on a church's activities and personally leading police raids on its worship band because he doesn't like "rock" music.

In a lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center, Prosecuting Attorney Walter Bedell is accused of coordinating raids on Faith Baptist Church and its worship band in which uniformed police officers entered the church without permission or a warrant and accused band members of "disorderly conduct."

The raids apparently were prompted by a neighbor who complained about being able to hear the church's worship band from his nearby home, according to lawyers for the Thomas More Law Center.

But from there on, the lawsuit said, things were out of control.

"Without a warrant or other legal authorization, uniformed police officers conducted several raids on Faith Baptist Church in Waterford Township, Mich., and threatened to prosecute several young Christian musicians for disorderly conduct – because the township prosecutor objected to the playing of contemporary religious music," the law firm confirmed.

Spokesman Brian Rooney called it prosecutorial "overzealousness."

"He shouldn't do that as a prosecutor," Rooney suggested, because of the potential conflict of interest. "Now he's a potential witness."

He said the church, in that location for more than 50 years, is close to both homes and an airport. In order to minimize its impact in its own neighborhood, church officials have worked to insulate their building.

Still, one of the neighbors recently complained about hearing the worship band from his yard, the law firm said.

As a result, several police raids were conducted, musicians were threatened with prosecution, and church officials even had to work to convince officers not to interrupt a worship service to take the drivers' licenses of band members.

"Uniformed police officers entering a church during religious services and young church members being threatened with prosecution is something that happens in Communist China – not in America," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Law Center.

"It is clear that Waterford Township authorities targeted Faith Baptist Church because of the type of religious music it uses in its services. Some of the individual police officers involved in the raids – apparently more sensitive to the constitutional protections surrounding religion than were their superiors – personally apologized afterwards," he said.

Township Supervisor Carl Solden, who also is a defendant in the case, told WND the police did not "raid" the church. "We haven't done any raids on churches," he said.

He said the issue arose from the neighbor who several times has complained about hearing church praise band music in his home. "That was the pretext on which we were there (at the church)," he said. He told WND since he wasn't there, he had few other details about the situations that developed.

Other defendants are the township itself as well as Police Chief Daniel T. McCaw and his deputy Jeffrey James.

Faith Baptist, which is headed by Pastor Jim Combs, has a congregation of 10,000 who attend services on three campuses. The police raids targeted the Waterford Township campus with 5,000 members, the lawsuit said.

The pastor contacted Thomas More in late 2007 after the raids developed. One happened during a Wednesday night youth service when uniformed police officers led by the prosecutor himself "burst into the church's sanctuary where the church's 'Praise and Worship' band was warming up," the lawsuit said.

"The prosecutor ordered the officers to take the names and addresses of all the young people on stage so that they could be charged with 'disorderly conduct,'" it said.

"The very next Sunday, Waterford Township police again raided Faith Baptist, this time during Pastor Comb's evening sermon. Officers were about to disrupt the services and remove the 'Praise and Worship' band members and order them to surrender their driver's licenses for personal information. However, an assistant pastor volunteered to bring the members to the police so as not to create an uproar among the congregation."

The lawsuit described the law enforcement team raid this way:

"These officers were instructed by a supervisor to make liaison with Bedell and inform him that they were en route to FBC. The uniformed officers rendezvoused with Bedell, who, acting in a law enforcement capacity, personally led and directed this raid. Bedell and the uniformed officers, again without a search warrant, arrest warrant or any other legal authority, entered FBC, advanced into the interior chapel, and detained and began interrogating Youth Pastor Jayson Combs. Bedell and the uniformed police officers also detained members of FBC's band, including two children…"

Then just days later, church officials spotted the prosecutor personally conducting "surveillance" on the church from his parked car, the lawsuit said.

The action alleges violations of the free exercise of religion, free speech and freedom of association rights for the church and band members under both the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions.

"The township prosecutor was very explicit: he told the pastors that churches should not play 'rock music,' and threatened that each time he heard music coming from the church he would conduct a raid," said Brandon Bolling, the Law Center attorney who is working on the case.

"Defendents threatened that every time a complaint is received against FBC, they will conduct a raid, conduct investigation therein, and collect evidence sufficient to charge FBC members with violating the Township Ordinance."

The multiple claims for relief included allegations the church members "suffered and continue to suffer fear, humiliation, shame, indignity, worry, embarrassment, loss of reputation, and emotional and physical distress."

WND has reported recently on several cases in which Christians were convicted of disorderly conduct. In one case, a street preacher delivering a Gospel message on a public street was arrested and eventually convicted, and an appeal is being planned.

WND also reported earlier on an appeal planned on behalf of a team of four Christians convicted of disorderly conduct for praying at a "gay" festival in Elmira, N.Y.

Court challenged to allow
Christians right to pray, too
Appeal seeks to overturn
decision eliminating 'Jesus'

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.

He said the Fredericksburg case is one of the first to be battled through the courts, and is being watched closely by city councils and state legislatures across the country.

WND has reported several times on various religious leaders, including one high-profile Hindu from Arizona, who have been asked to say prayers at various state legislatures and in the U.S. Senate. Meanwhile, leaders in the Senate specifically rejected permission for a Christian leader, former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, permission to do the same.

The arguments in the Turner case will be March 19, and will focus on the circumstances that led the city to tell Turner, "You can't refer to your God," said Whitehead.

"The city passed this regulation telling people how to pray!" he said. The penalty for violating would be a citation for "disorderly conduct."

A lower court dismissed the First Amendment complaint, despite arguments that the restriction "violates Turner's constitutional rights to free speech, to freely exercise his religious beliefs and to equal protection of the law."

"The essential question in this case is whether the government can provide an opportunity to pray to a select group of individuals, all the while dictating the content of the prayers and excluding anyone who refuses to go along with their dictates," Whitehead said.

"The answer, as the Supreme Court has ruled in the past, is in the negative – the government simply cannot prescribe or proscribe the content of any 'official' prayer without violating the Establishment Clause, and it cannot discriminate against any person based on his or her religious viewpoint without violating that person's rights to free speech and free religious expression," he said.

Turner joined the council in 2002, but since the 1950s the council called on members on a rotating basis to open in prayer. He prayed both for himself individually that he might have wisdom and guidance in carrying out his duties and likewise for the council, officials said, ending "in Jesus name."

The result was a threat of a lawsuit from the ACLU, which later was joined by other similarly situated advocacy organizations.

The council buckled, adopting a policy of "nondenominational" prayers only. The district court opined that the councilman's prayers were "government speech," an argument Whitehead challenged.

"Government cannot itself pray, thus prayer cannot be government speech," the appeal noted. Moreover, the standing definition of "government speech" generally has applied when the government controls the content, not during an individual council member's prayer.

Whitehead, in an opinion column on the case, which already has been in the courts for two years, said the people of Fredericksburg "should be grateful for a representative who knows how to stand his ground and fight for the things that matter."

"There are some things in life that cannot be compromised," he continued. "For Hashmel Turner, his faith, his integrity and his civil liberties are three things worth fighting for."

He noted Turner was the oldest of 10 children and served in the Army in Southeast Asia from 1969-1972, then returned to help each of his nine younger siblings get a start in life.

He and his wife Alice have been married more than three decades. He's served as an interim pastor and works as a motor vehicle operator and safety training instructor.

"In the state where Thomas Jefferson penned the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to protect the likes of three Baptist preachers jailed for uttering unlicensed prayers, it may seem strange that ending a prayer with three small words could ignite a legal brushfire," Whitehead said. "Yet it has.

"Other members of the city council are able to pray in the manner they choose and describe God in their own words. Apart from three small words, the other council members' prayers are not much different from Turner's," he said.

Whitehead told WND the case is just a symptom of the total secularization of America intended by groups like the ACLU and one of the newer organizations to join in trying to censor Turner, People for the American Way.

He cited another case his firm has handled: A student in Las Vegas who wanted to "mention" Jesus during her valedictory speech at graduation. School officials told her no, and when she did, turned off her microphone during her speech.

"There's a political correctness," he said. "Here's what I'm seeing nationwide. People don't want to offend anybody, so if one person is disturbed by the name 'Jesus" they want to eliminate it."

Yet at the same time the public is making accommodation for Muslim prayer rooms, footbaths and other special provisions for members of that faith.

"There seems to be very much of a tolerance for other religions, but not for Christianity," he said.

WND also has reported a number of times on the battles fought by a former Navy chaplain, Gordon James Klingenschmitt, who was ejected from the service because he chose to pray "in Jesus name."

But not all cases are being lost. Klingenschmitt wrote for WND about the case when the city council in Tulsa, Okla., voted 7-2 to restore religious liberty by lifting a ban that had prohibited praying "in Jesus name" before council meetings.

He also wrote about victories in Indiana, where the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision that banned praying to Jesus on the floor of the state House, and in Ohio, where state officials reversed their temporary ban on prayers to Jesus.

In Klingenschmitt's own case, he was convicted by the Navy of failing to follow a lawful order because his superior didn't want him praying "in Jesus name." But when Congress got word of his $3,000 fine for his prayer, members ordered the Navy to remove the limitation and allow chaplains to pray as their "conscience dictates."

WND also has reported on several cases in which Christians have been cited, or threatened with citations, for disorderly conduct for their expressions of their faith, including praying in a city park, and practicing praise and worship music in a church building.

Sandra Day O'Connor justifies prayer limits
'It is government speech, and the rule seems perfectly reasonable'

A former member of the U.S. Supreme Court serving on an appeals court panel has justified a city's decision to ban prayers at council meetings that are "in Jesus name," calling it a "reasonable" restriction on a councilman's speech rights.

The comments came this week as the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case being handled by the Rutherford Institute, on behalf of Rev. Hashmel Turner.

Turner, a resident of the city of Fredericksburg, Va., and a member of its town council, 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, except for Christians.

He said the Fredericksburg case is one of the first to be battled through the courts, and is being watched closely by city councils and state legislatures across the country.

Turner's attorneys argued that Turner's prayer should be subject to free-speech protections, while the city alleged that his speaking as an elected official turns his words into official "government speech."

The law firm reported that O'Connor described the case as black and white in favor of the city.

"It is government speech, and the rule seems perfectly reasonable," she opined.

The council adopted the policy banning "in Jesus name" in 2005 after Turner already had delivered about 100 prayers, many including those words, over four years. The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia had threatened a lawsuit if the practice continued.

But attorney Johan Conrod said the prayers are not government speech. "There is a zone in which an individual has free-speech rights that need to be respected."

Contents of council prayers, he noted, are not specified. "Government speech is when the government dictates pretty much every word," he said. And others continue, even now, using words such as "almighty God," "heavenly Father," and other references.

"What's the difference?" he asked.

Whitehead, president of the Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute, said if necessary the case will be forwarded to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Because he wants to pray to a particular God, he's not being treated equally," he said.

WND has reported several times on various religious leaders, including one high-profile Hindu from Arizona, who have been asked to say prayers at various state legislatures and in the U.S. Senate. Meanwhile, leaders in the Senate specifically rejected permission for a Christian leader, former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, to do the same.

The city also adopted a penalty of "disorderly conduct" for anyone violating the ban on praying "in Jesus name."

A lower court dismissed the First Amendment complaint, despite arguments that the restriction "violates Turner's constitutional rights to free speech, to freely exercise his religious beliefs and to equal protection of the law."

"The essential question in this case is whether the government can provide an opportunity to pray to a select group of individuals, all the while dictating the content of the prayers and excluding anyone who refuses to go along with their dictates," Whitehead said.

"The answer, as the Supreme Court has ruled in the past, is in the negative – the government simply cannot prescribe or proscribe the content of any 'official' prayer without violating the Establishment Clause, and it cannot discriminate against any person based on his or her religious viewpoint without violating that person's rights to free speech and free religious expression," he said.

Turner joined the council in 2002, but since the 1950s the council called on members on a rotating basis to open in prayer. He prayed both for himself individually that he might have wisdom and guidance in carrying out his duties and likewise for the council, officials said, ending "in Jesus name."

The result was a threat of a lawsuit from the ACLU, which later was joined by other similarly situated advocacy organizations.

The council buckled, adopting a policy of "nondenominational" prayers only. The district court opined that the councilman's prayers were "government speech," an argument Whitehead challenged.

Whitehead, in an opinion column on the case, which already has been in the courts for two years, said the people of Fredericksburg "should be grateful for a representative who knows how to stand his ground and fight for the things that matter."

"There are some things in life that cannot be compromised," he continued. "For Hashmel Turner, his faith, his integrity and his civil liberties are three things worth fighting for."

"Other members of the city council are able to pray in the manner they choose and describe God in their own words. Apart from three small words, the other council members' prayers are not much different from Turner's," Whitehead said.

WND also has reported a number of times on the battles fought by Klingenschmitt, who was ejected from the service because he chose to pray "in Jesus name."

But not all cases are being lost. Klingenschmitt wrote for WND about the case when the city council in Tulsa, Okla., voted 7-2 to restore religious liberty by lifting a ban that had prohibited praying "in Jesus name" before council meetings.

He also wrote about victories in Indiana, where the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision that banned praying to Jesus on the floor of the state House, and in Ohio, where state officials reversed their temporary ban on prayers to Jesus.

In Klingenschmitt's own case, he was convicted by the Navy of failing to follow a lawful order because his superior didn't want him praying "in Jesus name." But when Congress got word of his $3,000 fine for his prayer, members ordered the Navy to remove the limitation and allow chaplains to pray as their "conscience dictates."

WND also has reported on several cases in which Christians have been cited, or threatened with citations, for disorderly conduct for their expressions of their faith, including praying in a city park, and practicing praise and worship music in a church building.

ACLJ Senior Counsel Frank Manion was at the Illinois Supreme Court just this week as co-counsel in two very important pro-life cases. Here is Frank's report:

Morr-Fitz, et al. v. Blagojevich, et al.

The ACLJ is co-counsel for two pro-life pharmacy owners in Illinois who have sued the Governor and other state officials over a 2005 administrative regulation that coerces pro-life pharmacists into dispensing Plan B, the so-called ''morning-after pill.'' The lawsuit asks that the regulation, which provides for license revocation and steep fines for religiously-based refusals to dispense, be struck down as violative of the First Amendment, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The trial court dismissed the lawsuit and a divided court of appeals affirmed that dismissal on the grounds that the lawsuit was not ''ripe'' for adjudication because the pharmacists had not yet actually suffered any concrete harm from the regulation. As a result, the Illinois Supreme Court granted review of the case.

On March 18, 2008, the case was argued before the Illinois Supreme Court. The court appeared to be receptive to our arguments - both that the case was indeed ripe for consideration, and, further, that the regulation was in apparent conflict with the state's Health Care Right of Conscience Act. A clear majority of the justices were openly skeptical of the arguments put forth by the state's attorney. We anticipate a ruling perhaps within the next 60 days.

This case is just one of a number of related pieces of litigation that have made up the ACLJ's ongoing efforts to protect the conscience rights of pro-life health care professionals in Illinois and elsewhere. Directly related to the Morr-Fitz case, is the case of Menges et al. v. Blagojevich, where the ACLJ represented seven individual pharmacists suing over the same regulation at issue in Morr-Fitz. The U.S. District Court ruled that our clients had a valid claim that the regulation violated their Free Exercise rights because there was evidence that it intentionally targeted religious objectors. After that ruling, the state agreed to enter into an agreement that the regulation did not apply to individual pharmacists (as opposed to pharmacy owners) and that it could not be applied against our clients.

In Vandersand v. Wal-Mart, the U.S. District Court held that Illinois pharmacists are clearly covered by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which prohibits discrimination against any person based on that person's refusal to participate in any form of health care contrary to his or her moral or religious convictions. In Nead v. Bd. of Trustees, the court upheld the right of a nurse to sue under Title VII after being denied a promotion based on her opposition to dispensing the morning-after pill. In Moncivaiz v. DeKalb County, the court upheld the claims of a part-time secretary in a county health department who refused to participate in abortion referrals. And in 2002, we obtained a jury verdict on behalf of a pro-life nurse who was fired by her county employer for refusing to participate in abortion-related procedures (Diaz v. Riverside County).

Current litigation includes Quayle, et al. v. Walgreens, in which we are pursuing claims against Walgreens for firing four Illinois pharmacists and Baretela v. Unity Health, in which we represent a New York state social worker fired for refusing to participate in abortion referrals.

The ACLJ has been and remains at the forefront of a litigation to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of health care professionals. No American should be forced to make a choice between their conscience and their livelihood.

Okla. lawmaker threatened with legal action for practicing free speech

Oklahoma state lawmaker Sally Kern has had to obtain legal representation in the wake of a barrage of tens of thousands of hate-filled emails and threatened lawsuits after she spoke publicly about the dangers of the radical homosexual agenda.

During a recent speech at a Republican club meeting, Sooner State Representative Sally Kern said she was concerned that the homosexual agenda would destroy the nation and that the threat the movement poses is as big a threat to the nation as terrorism. She also told how young public school children are being indoctrinated into believing that the homosexual lifestyle is normal.

Reaction to her speech, which was posted on YouTube, was swift from homosexual activists. Kern said she received more than 27,000 emails to her office and home computers, many of them filled with profanity and vulgarity.

Now Kern is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center. Attorney Brian Rooney says his client has been threatened with legal action for expressing her First Amendment right to free speech. He believes homosexual activists will use the incident to push for hate crimes legislation.

"Really [it's] a ploy to try to intimidate Representative Kern in particular, and the state legislature in Oklahoma in general, to try to get these laws passed that favor them and end up criminalizing Christianity," he says.

Rooney explains that in addition to defending Kern's right to free speech, the Law Center wants to deliver a message to those threatening the lawmaker.

"[We're] making sure that these advocacy groups for the radical homosexuals know that a Christian public-interest law firm is involved, and that Representative Kern does not back down one iota from what she said; she stands by that," says the attorney. In addition, he says his firm wants those groups to know that "if there's any ill-conceived or misguided lawsuits against her that we will defend her free of charge."

Rooney says legal action may also be taken against some homosexual advocacy groups who erroneously reported that Kern's son was homosexual. Rooney says many media outlets reported that information, despite the fact that the homosexual groups did not have the correct name of Kern's son.

Four years ago, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.

Dobson editing radio show to avoid 'hate crimes' laws
Focus working to meet demands of 'human rights laws'

"Hate crimes" laws were defeated in Congress just a few months ago. Just a few weeks ago, Frank Wright of the National Religious Broadcasters Association warned, "We must be one in Christ to face the days ahead" because "hate crimes" laws would create untold new liability for Christians.

Now a major Christian ministry has confirmed that such "hate crimes" laws already are setting limits on what it can broadcast.

The issue is "hate crimes" laws in Canada, and they are affecting U.S. Christian ministries that broadcast into that nation.

WND reported just a week ago on a Christian ministry based in Canada that essentially was ordered shut down under that nation's "hate crimes" laws which prevent Christians from expressing Biblical opinions on a wide range of issues.

So what used to be called MacGregor Ministries with offerings in how to recognize and eliminate "faulty fads" in Christian churches has been re-created in the United States, and now operates under the name MM Outreach Media Ministries, according to spokeswoman Lorri MacGregor.

"Canada has very strong hate laws," she told WND.

She said the ministry points out the differences between Christianity and various cult beliefs, but also with respect, and never as a proponent. She said the work always is in response to a question or issue.

"When a group such as Jehovah's Witnesses said of our doctrine we're worshipping a freakish three-headed God (the Trinity), we should be able to respond," she said. "We say, 'Here's the doctrine of the Trinity and here is where it is in the Scripture.'"

That, however, violates Canada's hate crimes laws, and the ministry was ordered to either make wholesale changes in its presentations, or shut down.

"There was nothing we could do that would please them," she said. "They wanted us every time we criticized something to say, 'So Christianity is equal to Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses… Just decide for yourself.'"

"We cannot do that," she said of the work she and her husband, Keith, have spent their lives assembling.

Now comes confirmation from the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, one of the largest Christian publishing and broadcasting organizations in the nation, that it has been reviewing, and if necessary editing, its broadcasts to avoid complications with Canadian "hate crimes" laws.

In a statement attributed to Gary Booker, director of global content creation for Focus, the organization confirmed that broadcast standards have a "dynamic nature."

"Our staff at Focus on the Family Canada works proactively to stay abreast of the dynamic nature of broadcast standards, Canadian Revenue Agency legislation and both national and provincial human rights laws," the statement said.

"Parameters regarding what can be said (and how it should be said) are communicated by Focus on the Family Canada to our content producers here at Focus on the Family in the U.S. To the best of our ability, programming is then produced with Canadian law in mind," Focus continued.

"In particular, our content producers are careful not to make generalized statements nor comments that may be perceived as ascribing malicious intent to a 'group' of people and are always careful to treat even those who might disagree with us with respect. Our Focus on the Family content creators here in the U.S. are also careful to consult with Focus on the Family Canada whenever questions arise. Focus on the Family Canada, in turn, monitors the content produced in the U.S. and assesses this content against Canadian law," the group said.

"Occasionally, albeit very rarely, some content is identified that, while acceptable for airing in the U.S. would not be acceptable under Canadian law and is therefore edited or omitted in Canada," Focus said.

Focus broadcasts programs on thousands of radio stations across the continent, publishes dozens of magazines and newsletters and provides a wide range of other resources to Christian families and churches.

Wright had told the NRB that the U.S. version of "hate crimes" that was blocked from the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill last year originally would have made religious broadcasters liable for various criminal acts.

The subject of homosexuality, specifically, was provided protections in the U.S. proposal, and is one of the issues that Canadian law addresses.

WND previously reported when the the Canadian Family Action Coalition confirmed activists who claim they have "hurt feelings" are demanding and getting penalties imposed against those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle.

"We today have a major national magazine, a federal political party leader and a registered political party, a major Catholic newspaper (Catholic Insight) and an internationally renowned journalist all of whom are being investigated by appointed 'hate speech therapists' from the commissions," the group said.

The journalist is Mark Steyn, according to CFAC spokesman Brian Rushfeldt, and the newest case involves Canada's national Catholic magazine of news, opinion and analysis.

The publication has been told it is being targeted by a complaint from Edmonton resident Rob Wells, who alleges the publication has offended homosexuals. But Rushfeldt confirmed the result of any such dispute is up in the air, because ordinary courts don't handle such complaints, they are taken on by various Human Rights Commissions in Canada.

They are set up to take action if anything "indicates discrimination" or "is likely to expose to hatred or contempt."

Rushfeldt noted that Alberta's provincial law, for example, orders: "No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or (b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt bcause of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons."

"You see if my feelings are hurt and I feel discriminated against due to my 'religious orientation' then surely I must have a right and entitlement to have an appointed group of people in the Human Rights Commission at taxpayers' expense, intervene and force the activist to pay me compensation for my feelings. This is really not bullying is it? Or is it more like extortion?" said a commentary by the Family Action organization.

"How can I prove my feeling are hurt? I don't need to prove it. I just say it is so and it is so. Do I need to provide truth? No, not under the functions of the Human Rights Act. … Section 3(1) states that if something 'indicates discrimination' and 'is likely to expose to hatred or contempt' is a basis for action."

Similar restrictions have been found valid for broadcasting, officials said. And websites and books also will have to be edited, since those were the primary issue affecting MMOutreach when it used to operate in Canada.

"They said if we were just preaching our own Gospel, and weren't criticizing anybody else, we could continue," Mrs. MacGregor told WND in the earlier case. "If you're going to defend the Gospel, you've got to criticize sometimes."

For example, the ministry addresses the issue of "fads," including a "creeping Eastern mysticism" appearing in some churches, "turning meaningful prayer meetings into mind-emptying rituals called contemplative prayer promising experiences of a spiritual nature."

"Feelings have often replaced the solid word of God," their website warns.

Mrs. MacGregor told WND the government ultimatum was that she would have to preach that "all religions are equal," but she could not work within such restrictions.

"We wrote on Feb. 7 and voluntarily revoked our [license] ourselves," she said. "We said this auditor requires us to compromise our Christian faith, which we cannot do."

"You're not allowed in Canada to speak in a persuasive way about your own faith," she said.

The U.S. proposal was launched in the House of Representatives as H.R. 1592 and would have punished crimes based on the "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability…"

The immediate concern – and still unresolved worry – expressed by Christian radio broadcasters, ministers and others was: If someone attacks a homosexual, will those speaking against homosexuality also be charged for inciting violence?

Attorney fears 'prayer police' could be reality in NY town

A liberal special-interest group based in Washington, DC, is asking the town of Greece, New York, to dictate to its citizens what is acceptable speech for starting prayers in the town council's monthly meetings.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is suing the town of Greece, New York, on behalf of residents Susan Galloway, who is Jewish, and Linda Stephens, an atheist. The pair is offended because, for past decade, town council meetings have been preceded by a voluntary prayer -- typically offered by a local clergy member.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United, argues that repeatedly offering Christian prayer at the meetings "sends a message to non-Christians that they are second-class citizens. That's not a message public officials should want to send ...." But Joel Oster, the Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel representing the town, disputes claims by Lynn's gruop that the council is promoting Christianity by allowing the prayers.

"[The town council does] not edit the contents of these prayers. They do not pre-review the prayers. They are not the prayer police," chides Oster. "They are just simply following a time-honored tradition established by our founding fathers ...."

Oster says he is somewhat baffled by the fact that Americans United would ask the government to censor the content of voluntary prayers. "We actually believe that what Americans United are (sic) asking us to do is to violate the Establishment Clause," he continues, "because the town should not be in the business of telling private citizens how they should pray."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v. Chambers that beginning deliberative sessions of legislative bodies with prayer is constitutional. Oster says he believes the judge in this case will stick to the Supreme Court ruling.

Student sues after 'zero' for religious art
Alleges others in class allowed to draw 'demonic' images

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.

Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.

The boy tore the policy up in front of Millin, who kicked him out of class. Later that day, assistant principal Cale Jackson told the boy his religious expression infringed on other students' rights.

Jackson told the boy, his stepfather and his pastor at a meeting a week later that religious expression could be legally censored in class assignments. Millin stated at the meeting the cross in the drawing also infringed on other students' rights.

The boy received two detentions for tearing up the policy. Jackson referred questions about the lawsuit to Gaarder.

Sometime after that meeting, the boy's metals teacher rejected his idea to build a chain-mail cross, telling him it was religious and could offend someone, the lawsuit claims. The boy decided in March to shelve plans to make a pin with the words "pray" and "praise" on it because he was afraid he'd get a zero for a grade.

The lawsuit also alleges school officials allow other religious items and artwork to be displayed on campus.

A Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom, the lawsuit claims, adding the teacher passionately teaches Hindu principles to students.

In addition, a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance, a picture of a six-limbed Hindu deity is in the school's hallway and a drawing of a robed sorcerer hangs on a hallway bulletin board.

Drawings of Medusa, the Grim Reaper with a scythe and a being with a horned head and protruding tongue hang in the art room and demonic masks are displayed in the metals room, the lawsuit alleges.

A.P. suffered unequal treatment because of his religion even though student expression is protected by the First Amendment, according to the lawsuit, which was filed Friday.

"Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate," the lawsuit said. "No compelling state interest exists to justify the censorship of A.P.'s religious expression."

Superintendent's orders
to worried dad: Butt out!
Elementary lessons on 'gay' issues
now tied to reading, social studies

The superintendent of a public school that sparked a federal lawsuit by teaching homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten has told another worried parent he can review course material, but he has no right to withdraw his child from class during lessons.

The lawsuit, on which WND has reported extensively, was filed by David Parker, whose child was in a class at Estabrook Elementary in Lexington, Mass.

Parker's strenuous objection to not being notified when lessons concerning homosexuality were presented landed him in jail overnight. His subsequent lawsuit resulted in a court verdict that essentially concludes parents have no rights to control what their children are taught.

The court ruling adopted the arguments submitted by several pro-homosexual organizations that stated they had rights to children in public schools. However, Parker has confirmed for WND the case is being prepared for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court because of the far-reaching impacts of the ruling.

Unless the case is overturned, Parker told WND, "it now would allow teachers in elementary schools to influence children into any views they wanted to, behind the backs of parents, to a captive audience, and against the will of the parents if need be."

In the latest confrontation, publicized by the traditional values advocates at Mass Resistance, Lexington Supt. Paul Ash told a parent who also wanted to be advised when homosexuality was being taught to children that the school would not cooperate.

"We are not required to inform parents in advance of teaching units that include same gender parents or required to release students when such topics are discussed," Ash told the parent in an e-mail posted by Mass Resistance. "The appeals court dismissed the claim that parents have a right to require the school provide advance notice or the right to remove their children.

"In addition, the school committee has decided that teachers must be able to teach topics they feel are appropriate without the requirement parents be notified in advance," Ash wrote.

The e-mail was in response to parent Shawn Landon's request to be notified when such material would be promoted. His concerns, in return, followed an announcement from the school that it was "creating an inclusive environment and embracing diversity" by expanding its promotions of such alternative lifestyles.

"A group of administrators, teachers, and community members formed the 'Windows and Mirrors' subcommittee to develop a comprehensive, inclusive K-5 Diversity curriculum … [which] promotes acceptance and understanding of the diversity of our town, country, and world, and includes both historical lessons on civil rights and contemporary lessons of families," Ash had announced.

Those "contemporary lessons of families," Ash continued, will include a focus on "gay and lesbian parents."

Landon, after getting word of the school's plans, wrote Martha Batten, Estabrook principal, "I will absolutely require prior notification to any discussion, education, training, reading or anything at all related (even remotely) to homosexuality. It is quite clear by the e-mail I just received that you have a very specific agenda and my family will be exercising our rights to be notified and not to participate. This goes against everything we believe and practice…"

Batten forwarded the e-mail to Ash, who responded that the court's have "established Lexington's right" to teach diversity units, including stories that show same gender parents. He also said there's no need for the schools to let parents know, or even to permit parents to withdraw their children if they would somehow happen to find out.

He did offer a solution: Landon could review the material ahead of time, so he would know what indoctrination would be presented at some later point.

"If your child happens to be placed in a class with a teacher who will be teaching the four of five diversity units, you will then know what will be taught and will be able to talk to your son or daughter about the topics at home," the superintendent said.

Landon responded with his "disappointment."

"Your complete rejection of my basic rights as a parent is nothing less than outrageous and discriminatory," he said. "It is entirely unacceptable. I must insist that I be notified prior to my child being exposed to this horribly offensive material."

"Good for you, Mr. Landon!" officials at Mass Resistance posted. "It's about time more people stood up and were counted. It's actually amazing and outrageous that people like Paul Ash … are allowed to be educators… What kind of human beings would do this to parents and children?"

Parker and his lawyers say they will be seeking permission to submit the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court over such indoctrination.

Parker said the ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals essentially concluded that it is no burden on parents' free exercise of religion to have their children taught ideas at a public school that violate the parents' religious teachings.

"But that ignores the fact that the most basic free exercise is your teaching your children right from wrong in their formative years," he said. "That is completely being undermined by the rulings of these federal courts so far.

"Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]" he said. "It's not just exposure to an idea, to the [offensive] books, It's the teacher's manipulating the mind of children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the teacher happens to believe it's a good ideology.

"It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of little children," Parker said. "Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars.

"Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely of national significance. No parent wants to put their very little children in positions in which they're minds are being used as battlegrounds," he said.

He warned pursuit of such agendas would cause public schools to implode. That's an issue that California already is facing, as WND has reported. There, a coalition of organizations is encouraging parents and providing resources for them to be able to remove their children from public schools. The coalition's goal is to take 600,000 children from California's public districts, because of a new state law there requiring indoctrination that not only is pro-homosexual, but also affirms bisexuality, transsexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

"The human secularist religion of the [National Education Association,] buttressed by the power of the state, will now turn public schools into the next secular synagogues," Parker said. "[They say], 'We're just preparing the kids to be citizens.' But it's a religion. It is a devious and evil form of religion."

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Lexington, Mass., school district can teach children contrary ideas without violating their parents' rights to exercise religious beliefs.

"Public schools," opined Judge Sandra L. Lynch, "are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them."

As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf originally dismissed the civil rights lawsuit, concluding there is, in fact, an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Parker said if this topic is approved, why not any other topic, up to and including Nazism?

The Parker dispute began in the spring of 2005 when the Parkers then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" It came in a "Diversity Book Bag" and depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.

Prof to student: Keep the faith, lose the grade
Teacher thinks it's his job to get class to change personal beliefs

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.

"This is another trouble example of how some in the academic world believe it's acceptable to violate the First Amendment rights afforded to all students, especially students who hold Christian beliefs," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.

"The actions by this professor clearly reflect hostility toward religion. To require students to acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in a class is not only wrong, but clearly violates the constitutional rights of students who hold religious beliefs," he said. "Unless this school takes corrective action, we will go to federal court to protect the rights of our client."

Attempts by WND to reach the school for comment were unsuccessful.

In the letter to Suffolk County Attorney Christine Malafi, the ACLJ explained the problem started when DeLuca took the required philosophy class. She's been a student at the school for two years, and holds a 3.9 grade point average. She even got good grades in the philosophy class "until her religious beliefs became known," the organization said.

"The grades she received on class assignments dropped significantly once God and religion became prominent topics of class discussion and her refusal to compromise her Christian faith became apparent," the ACLJ said. "This is because the course goes beyond merely requiring knowledge of prominent philosophers and their arguments or ways of thinking, which Gina does not object to."

In addition to the lower grades, the ACLJ said, the professor has called the student "closed-minded," "uncritical," "hurtful," and "blinded by belief."

"While a college professor may encourage students to be informed about viewpoints and arguments that differ from their own, it is inappropriate – and unconstitutional – for a public college professor to make passing a required course (and thus graduation) contingent upon a student's willingness to express agreement with philosophical viewpoints that conflict with her religious beliefs," the ACLJ said.

The school now has a deadline of April 14 to meet the requirements of the letter, the ACLJ said.

The law firm that specializes in constitutional issues also has launched an online petition to demand the college discontinue its denial of the student's First Amendment rights.

Christian photographers fined for refusing same-sex ceremony
State hits couple with $6,600 penalty for violating anti-discrimination law

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 believes 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.

In its ruling this week, the commission found: "Complainant, Vanessa Willock, proved her discrimination claim based on sexual orientation. The Complainant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent, Elane Photography, LLC, discriminated against her because of sexual orientation, in violation of … the New Mexico Human Rights Act."

The Christian couple was ordered to pay Willock $6,637.94.

The ADF, however, said the case will be appealed because of the significance of the constitutional issue at stake.

"The constitutional right of Americans to refrain from participating in a ceremony or other event because their sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with its message is at stake," the organization said. "Christians could be forced to advocate for viewpoints with which they disagree or to participate in events that violate their conscience."

Lorence told OneNewsNow that New Mexico's state law is similar to laws in 19 other states, as well as the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and if such precedents aren't overturned, they could be used to silence biblical Christianity.

"There is a great threat to our religious liberties and our ability to speak out in favor of traditional marriage when these non-discrimination laws are interpreted in such a harsh way to censor Christians and others," he said.

The AFD noted that the "commitment ceremony" was proposed to be held in Taos, N.M., despite the fact neither marriage nor civil unions are legal for members of the same sex in New Mexico.

"The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood," said Lorence. "Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate."

WND reported earlier on a plan that would impose such "non-discrimination" requirements on the nation.

The congressional proposal, H.R. 3685, failed. But the Employment Non-Discrimination Act plan would have given special privileges to "gay" and "transgendered" individuals.

"If passed, the bill would grant special employment rights and protected minority status to individuals who define themselves based upon chosen sexual behaviors," said Matt Barber, a policy analyst with Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest public policy women's group.

"It would force employers to abandon their First Amendment civil rights at the workplace door," he said.

President Bush, before the bill's support fell short in Congress, had suggested it likely would be vetoed because it would have raised "concerns on constitutional and policy grounds."

The White House "policy statement" on the issue said H.R. 3685 would extend employment-discrimination provisions to set up "a comprehensive federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

But the White House said the plan was "inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Act prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible.

The White House said the issue involves such "imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult. For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on 'perceived' sexual orientation, or 'association' with individuals of a particular sexual orientation."

However, various local governments already have approved such regulations, ADF said.

War rages over accuracy of Bible curriculum
$50 text says 'God's help comes with strings'

A war has erupted over teaching the Bible in public schools across the United States, not whether to teach it but how it should be taught: by using the Bible itself or whether it should be accompanied by a committee-written text that costs $50 each that teaches "God's help comes with strings attached."

The issue is raging now before the state Legislature in Tennessee as well as in other states, where officials have begun joining the move towards teaching more about religion, especially Christianity, although trying to remain constitutional by not teaching students to be religious.

The Tennessee situation was addressed recently by state Sen. Scott Beason of Alabama, whose own lawmaking body rejected a recent proposal to mandate use in that state of the Bible Literacy Project's "The Bible and its Influence." The work has been suggested as mandatory for public school students by Democrats in several states already.

In a separate column published on WND, Beason describes his concerns over that curriculum, which he says advocates cultic philosophy and undermines biblical teachings by suggesting the Ark of the Covenant is "famous in Western imagination."

He also accuses Charles Haynes, of the First Amendment Center, of contributing to and promoting a book that misquoted the Mayflower Compact by leaving out "Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and the Advancement of the Christian Faith."

To WND, Haynes defended the book, saying a lot of people from a lot of backgrounds reviewed it.

"No textbook is perfect. I don't think it's perfect. I think it has a lot of good things. Do I think it misrepresents the Bible? I don't think so," he said today.

He cited Chuck Colson, adviser to President Richard Nixon during the Watergate debacle and now the powerful Christian founder of a number of Christian ministries, as an endorser of the book. But then so was Ted Haggard, former chief of National Association of Evangelicals, who resigned in disgrace from his Colorado megachurch after being accused of homosexual activity.

Haynes told WND the book's goal was to find "common ground" for people of different beliefs to meet and discuss.

"I have worked with people on all sides," he told WND.

But the book "doesn't take sides," he said. "It's very important to try to come together… There are ways to work across our differences for the common good."

Critics of the book, however, believe such "coming together" actually may be surrender to the enemy in a number of culture battle fronts, pointing out Haynes previously worked with organizations such as the aggressively pro-homosexual organization Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, and has pooh-poohed the idea that a national "hate crimes" plan in the United States in any way threatens Christians.

Haynes also equated the religious objections Muslim cab drivers have to carrying passengers who have alcohol or dogs with them to religious objections from Christian pharmacists who don't want to dispense abortion-causing medications.

GLSEN is the organization that promotes the "Day of Silence" advocacy event to recognize "discrimination" against homosexuals in public schools across the nation in each.

Beason criticized Haynes for writing an article, "When the Government Prays, No One Wins," "in which he infers that the National Day of Prayer should be declared illegal." Beason also charges that Hayne serves on the Board of the Pluralism Project, "along with a Wiccan high priestess, Margot Adler."

He further says Haynes authored a "Communitarian manifesto on religious education" that follows the teachings of occultist Georg Hegel, whose philosophy is used to "shape the people's thoughts and morph the masses to a new kind of community."

"It works!" Beason wrote. "This process transforms individual thinkers into group thinkers. Since the sense of belonging feels good, the threat of group disapproval inhibits members from voicing divisive views.

Beason also noted the late Dr. D. James Kennedy wrote in a letter about such perspectives: "… It would be a tremendous mistake to impose such very anti-biblical material upon our children in public schools."

And he said Dr. John Hagee also was critical of the book: "My overview of 'The Bible and Its Influence' is that this is a masterful work of deception, distortion and outright falsehoods," Hagee wrote.

There have been other critics, too.

Author Berit Kjos said the book redefines biblical terms and demeans God, through questions such as: "Do absolute good and evil exist?" and links the Bible to communism by asking: "Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) stated in his novel The Brothers Karamazow, 'If there is no God, then all things are permitted.' Find this passage and read it in context. Then, write a short story about a world in which all things are permitted."

A review of Haynes' own writings revealed that he called the election of Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, "a symbol of hope – and a source of controversy."

cont'd

He called warnings from U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., about Muslims "bigoted and un-American."

"Let's pause, then, to salute that much-maligned concept, 'diversity.' Far from being a threat to American values, the religious diversity of immigrants has moved us closer to realizing our ideals," he wrote.

Haynes also was harshly critical when Republicans in the Georgia Legislature rejected a "first-in-the-nation" plan calling for Bible electives, specifically "The Bible and Its Influences," to be taught in Georgia's public schools.

"It started in Alabama, where Democrats in that Legislature proposed Bible electives that would use a new textbook, 'The Bible and Its Influence,' published by the Bible Literacy Project. Because the textbook has broad support from Jews and Christians, was reviewed by 41 scholars (disclosure: I was one of the reviewers), and successfully field-tested, the Democrats saw this as a golden opportunity to do something both religion-friendly and constitutional," he said.

"Not surprisingly, Alabama Republicans weren't about to let Democrats steal their biblical thunder. Although in the minority, GOP legislators have thus far managed to block passage of the Democrats' bill," he wrote. "Georgia is a different story. Once again, the Democrats went first, proposing Bible electives using 'The Bible and Its Influence.' Once again, Republicans fought back, accusing the Democrats of 'trying to put a wolf in sheep's clothing.' Since GOP lawmakers control both legislative houses, they scuttled the Democratic bill and passed an alternative."

He said the issue is "really about how public schools should teach about the Bible."

And he criticized harshly an alternative plan, an approach that simply uses the Bible as a text, supported by the National Council on Bible Curriculum.

Elizabeth Ridenour, a spokeswoman for that organization, declined to offer criticism of other programs, saying that wasn't her goal.

But Beason wasn't so reluctant.

Some of the teachings in "The Bible and Its Influence" aren't appropriate for school children, he said. Further, supporters, he said, "see it as an opportunity to dupe the public into thinking we're teaching the Bible in schools."

He cited a reference to labor organization Cesar Chavez being described in an Old Testament minor prophet because he was fighting for social justice.

Wiley Drake, who was serving as the second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, also issued a series of criticisms about "The Bible and Its Influences."

"Page 29 reads 'other origin stores tell of many gods who are created, etc.' Hagee says this 'plants the concept in the mind of children that polytheism in just as acceptable as monotheism, which is contrary to the Bible,'" he noted.

Another original passage described God creating the world "out of welter and waste" and leaves an incorrect interpretation of creation, he said.

Nancy Manno, co-host of the radio talk show "In Great Company," also has been critical of Haynes' promotion of the book.

"Haynes' background as a former employee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and his close association with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Communitarian Network undoubtedly have shaped his viewpoint on religion in the public square," she wrote.

Actor and WND columnist Chuck Norris has endorsed the National Council on Bible Curriculum, which cites quotations from historic American leaders including Horace Greeley, who said, "It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people."

Norris said more than 1,300 schools in 37 states offer the program.

"The Bible and Its Influence," on the other hand, has been endorsed by the Associated Press and Time Magazine.

Kjos, however, said whatever else the book may be, it is inaccurate.

"Page 215: 'Parable. Jesus taught with parables to put his message about God's reign into language that all his hearers would grasp immediately.'" she cited. "That's not true! His parables would hide the truth from the world, not simplify or expose it."

She cited Matt. 13:10-13: "And the disciples came and said to Him, 'Why do You speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. ... Therefore I speak to them in parables....'"

And she worried about the pagan influences, because it says: "Muslims honor Abraham as the first monotheist, worshipper of the one true God they call Allah.... This shared respect for Abraham makes the long-standing conflicts among Jews, Christians, and Muslims – from the medieval crusades to today's Middle Easter clashes – surprising on one hand and understandable on the other."

There's "no mention of Muhammad's bloody jihads and destruction of Christian communities around the Mediterranean – from Spain to India," she said.

She said the original version also made fun of the Bible, quoting, "Page 117: 'You've probably seen cartoon or movie depictions of the prophet of doom, a shaggy bearded individual in ragged robes, ranting from a soapbox or wearing a sandwich board sign that reads, 'The end is near.'"

Lesbian demands control over Christian's daughter
Woman flees same-sex 'union,' now fights to raise 6-year-old

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.

That argument already has been adopted by the Vermont Supreme Court in a decision supportive of that state's same-sex "union" provisions, but Miller and her daughter live in Virginia, and Miller has gone to the state's highest court defending her right to adopt Christian parenting principles.

"This hearing will determine whether a lesbian woman who is Lisa Miller's former partner will share custody of Isabella, Lisa's daughter," wrote Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America. "The woman is neither an adoptive parent nor is she biologically related to Isabella. In fact, she's a total stranger to the little girl.

"Isabella, who is now six years old, hadn't seen this woman since she was 17 months old. This case could have national ramifications and will help decide whether states like Vermont and Massachusetts get to export their radical new definitions of marriage and family around the country," Barber said.

WND reported earlier when a lower court in Virginia ceded authority to the Vermont Supreme Court, which opined that it alone has jurisdiction over the child custody battle because the pair lived together briefly in Vermont. That ruling came even though Miller gave birth in Virginia through artificial insemination, her daughter was born in Virginia and that's where the mother and daughter now live.

That ruling, "tramples on parental rights and state sovereignty," Staver commented earlier.

He noted Virginia law refuses to recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions, and the under federal Defense of Marriage Act, Vermont does not have the right to impose its same-sex union policy on Virginia.

The two women were living in Virginia in 2000 when they went to Vermont to get a "civil union." Miller later gave birth to a girl through artificial insemination, but the child was not adopted by Jenkins.

The relationship ended when Miller became a Christian and claimed Jenkins was abusive. Miller, who says she no longer is a lesbian, lives with her daughter in Virginia.

Lower courts in Virginia have ruled Miller is the sole parent and the Virginia Marriage Affirmation Act bars recognition of civil unions. The Vermont Supreme Court, however, reached across state lines to demand that Miller allow Jenkins visitation, and Virginia's lower courts agreed to that.

Liberty Counsel characterized the case as a "precedent-setting legal battle between Virginia and Vermont over same-sex unions and the rights of fit, biological parents against unrelated third parties."

"This case is important for the nation to ensure that states remain sovereign regarding the essence of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This case is important for children to guarantee that one state cannot undermine another state's support for the traditional family. The case is exceptionally important for Lisa Miller and the future of her six-year-old daughter," Staver said.

Barber noted Miller's own account reveals emotional problems triggered by abandonment by her father, abuse from her mentally ill mother and a decade-long war with alcohol led her into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, the relationship with Jenkins was begun and on a weekend trip, they traveled from Virginia where they lived to Vermont for their "civil union."

After Isabella was born, Miller and Jenkins moved to Vermont.

But things were unstable and Miller alleged Jenkins was abusive.

"It was a troubled relationship from the beginning," Miller told "World Magazine," "The relationship did not improve as Jenkins … grew increasingly bitter and controlling."

Months later, the relationship ended and Miller and her daughter returned to Virginia.

Then in 2003, Jenkins demanded that the courts in Vermont award her custody of Isabella, instead of leaving her with her mother.

Since the Vermont court's ruling, Miller and her daughter "now [are] required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger [Jenkins] who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her 'momma,'" Barber said.

"After Lisa ended her relationship with Janet, when Isabella was only 17 months old, Lisa became a born-again Christian. … She has attempted to raise her child according to biblical principles," said Rena M. Lindevaldsen, a Liberty Counsel attorney representing the Millers.

"According to recent filings by Janet, however, Janet believes that Lisa's religious beliefs render Lisa incapable of properly parenting Isabella," she said.

But she said the court ruling will go far beyond the Miller mother and daughter.

"The [Vermont] court has additionally ruled, essentially, that its own judicial authority is superior to that of both Virginia – which defines marriage as existing only between one man and one woman – and the federal government," she noted.

"Lisa and Isabella's story tragically demonstrates that it's all too often children who are ultimately victimized by state-recognized immorality. It's the children who suffer when adults selfishly depart from God's intended design for human sexuality and marriage – as reaffirmed by Christ's teachings in the New Testament – and enter into counterfeit homosexual 'civil-unions' or 'same-sex marriages,'" Barber said.

"Although Lisa and Isabella's situation is both heartbreaking and unjust, it shouldn't be at all surprising. In the name of so-called 'gay rights,' the militant homosexual lobby has made its position crystal clear. The selfish individual interests of those who define themselves based upon a choice to engage in deviant homosexual behaviors supersede the best interests of everyone else … even children," Barber said.

If the rulings from the two state supreme courts are at odds, court procedure automatically would advance the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bow your head,
break the law!
Court ruling goes against coach
who 'respected' student prayers

A federal appeals court has ruled a New Jersey high-school football coach who bowed his head while students on his team led prayer was actually breaking the law.

The decision, though, will be appealed, said John Whitehead, president of the Virginia-based civil-liberties group the Rutherford Institute.

"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," he said. "This undermines a time-honored tradition that has less to do with religion that it does athletic tradition. It's a sad statement on our rights as Americans that schools are no longer bastions of freedom."

The ruling came in the case involving Coach Marcus Borden.

His practice was to bow his head silently or "take a knee" while students on his football team led prayer prior to games.

But in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer, even though that had been a regular part of the team's pre-game activities for 25 years.

The school concluded while it could not infringe on the students' constitutionally protected right to pray, they could limit the actions of coaches, who are public employees and whose participation allegedly would violate "the separation of church and state."

U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh ruled the following year the district's interpretation was wrong, and school officials were violating Borden's rights to free speech, freedom of association and academic freedom.

The district, however, challenged that, and aided by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argued Borden lacked any constitutional rights to expression or academic freedom because of his duties as teacher and coach.

The appellate judges concluded Borden's acts "cross the line and constitute and unconstitutional endorsement of religion."

Teacher keeps Bible, cites God-given rights
Principal ordered Good Book hidden from students

An Ohio school teacher has refused an order from his public school principal to hide his personal Bible, which he's kept on his desk for 18 years, from his students.

The teacher, John Freshwater, held a news conference today to respond to questions from local reporters about the issue as the deadline set by school officials for him to hide his Bible passed.

No formal action was taken immediately by officials in the Mount Vernon, Ohio, School District in response to Freshwater's move, according to Coach Dave Daubenmire of Pass The Salt Ministries and Minutemen United, who was acting as a spokesman for Freshwater.

Daubenmire has had his own experience with such perspectives, having been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1999 for praying with his football teams while coaching in Ohio.

Freshwater has been a middle school science teacher for 20 years in the Mount Vernon School District. Recently the principal visited his classroom, and then notified him of several changes he would be required to make.

One was a demand to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments from a collage of historic information in one location in his classroom, a demand Freshwater agreed to fulfill.

But he said the district must prove to him how it can order him to remove his personal Bible from his desk without infringing on his God-given and First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

"John Freshwater has sounded the alarm and we have hope that his cause will not die for a lack of a second from the church leadership in Mount Vernon," said Jim Harrison, national director of Minutemen United.

He said the hope is the community churches will rally behind Freshwater's desire to keep his Bible handy.

"This is an incredible opportunity to right some historical misconceptions about the church and state relationship in our great nation," Harrison said.

Daubenmire, who said he "has a deep appreciation and understanding for what John is doing," told WND Freshwater is not yet represented by counsel, but hasn't been subjected to any sanction by the school yet either.

"Today at noon he informed them he would not comply with the order to remove his personal Bible from where it's sat for 18 years," Daubenmire told WND. "It's his personal Bible. He draws great strength from it."

He also said Freshwater has not, and does not, use the Bible in his interaction with students, but he also believes he does not forfeit his own rights just for being a teacher.

Such a school demand, he said, amounts to an ongoing viewpoint discrimination, since a Muslim woman would not be ordered to hide her head covering from students' views.

The school district's superintendent, Steve Short, could not be reached by WND. But school officials released a statement:

"The Mount Vernon Schools today directed one of its middle school science teachers to remove from his classroom the 10 Commandments he had displayed and to remove his Bible from his desktop while students were in his room. The Mount Vernon Schools has not taken this action because it opposes religion, but because it has an obligation under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to protect against the establishment of religion in the schools. As a public school system the district cannot teach, promote or favor any religion or religious beliefs."

Daubenmire said, however, the school's demands go far beyond making sure it doesn't "establish religion" and reaches the level of a "continuous purging of Christianity."

In an earlier commentary for WND, Daubenmire framed the issue as a rampant attack singling out Christianity.

"Please notice that the attack on religious freedom in America is on Christianity. No one is trying to silence the religious freedom of Muslims or atheists or humanists. Quite the contrary. We are told to 'understand' Muslims, to be sensitive to the atheists and to tolerate the humanists and their various denominations of 'isms' (environmentalism, feminism, secularism, socialism, communism), which we teach openly in our schools," he said.

"Our rights are God-given rights. They are not 'constitutional' rights," he continued. "Take some time and read the U.S. Constitution. You will see that it does not grant any rights to anyone. Instead, while setting up the federal government, the document (the first 10 amendments) also prohibits the government from interfering with various aspects of human freedom. The first 10 amendments limit what the government can do. They shouldn't be called the Bill of Rights; they should be called the Bill of Limitations."

Instead of claiming constitutional rights, citizens of the U.S. should proclaim their God-given rights, he said.

Protesting 'gay' promo draws threats
Student warned of 'failing grade' if absent from 'Day of Silence'

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.

Liberty Counsel has assembled a legal memorandum that explains how to protect schools from being "hijacked" by the agenda of the event, which is promoted by the homosexual advocacy organization Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.

The memo advises that student conduct causing a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities is not protected under the First Amendment.

Liberty Counsel said in Oklahoma, a high school graduate was told by her former principal if he did not allow the Day of Silence he could not allow the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and in South Dakota, a student was told her absence on that day would impose a requirement that she write a paper explaining why she did not participate, according to Liberty Counsel.

The day encourages students to remain silent in recognition of "discrimination" against homosexuals. The event this year is scheduled April 25 although some schools are recognizing it on a different day.

"GLSEN claims the event counteracts bullying, but it is merely promoting an anti-heterosexual viewpoint," Liberty Counsel said. "Schools can teach students the value of respect without accepting GLSEN's propaganda event. Many states, like Florida, for example, have laws that require abstinence-based education when sexuality is discussed, so the school cannot recognize the Day of Silence without promoting abstinence."

The organization's advice continued: "Some school administrators do not understand that students cannot be penalized for refusing to observe the Day of Silence. … Liberty Counsel is encouraging students to mount a counter-celebration to promote a positive message of purity on the Day of Silence. Students are encouraged to wear white and to distribute flyers promoting sexual purity whenever other students are permitted to distribute literature promoting the Day of Silence."

WND reported previously on coalition plans for this year's Day of Silence.

"It's outrageous that our neighborhood schools would allow homosexual activism to intrude into the classroom," said Buddy Smith of the American Family Association, one of a long list of organizations asking parents to keep their students home from school on that day.

"'Day of Silence' is about coercing students to repudiate traditional morality. It's time for Christian parents to draw the line – if your children will be exposed to this DOS propaganda in their school, then keep them home for the day," he said.

Linda Harvey, a spokeswoman for Mission America, told WND, "It's incredibly important that parents be very aware because things are quickly getting to a bizarre level."

Her organization is publishing lists of schools where the event appears to be on the schedule, as well as a list of schools where officials have confirmed they will not be recognizing the promotional day.

"When a parent finds out about this kind of event, they need to take immediate action, join with other parents. They need to go to the school board. They need to be persistent. They will get a cold shoulder from those who say, 'We've never heard this [concern] before.' Those are standard responses. They need to be persistent, and very, very discerning about what's really going on and who's advocating this," she warned.

Besides being morally objectionable, such lifestyles present enormously higher risks for children for HIV and other related health damage, she noted.

"[Parents] need to decide this is real, this is extremely damaging. And it's only going to get worse. In the early 1990s there were a handful of homosexual clubs at schools. Now there are about 3,500-4,000 in high schools and they are increasing. The big trend now is in middle schools. GLSEN has made it a goal to have homosexual clubs in every school K-12. They're going to make it if we don't stand up and be counted," she said.

Matt Barber, a spokesman for Concerned Women for America, said the day "amounts to educational malpractice."

"Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It is the height of impropriety and cynicism for 'gay' activists and school officials to use children as pawns in their attempt to further a highly controversial and polarizing political agenda," he said.

"Social activism does not belong in the classroom," added Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth.

The Alliance Defense Fund also works to promote the non-disruptive "Day of Truth" that is scheduled this year on April 28.

Among those in the coalition supporting opposition to the "Day of Silence" agenda are:

* Abiding Truth Ministries

* American Family Association

* AFA of MI

* AFA of PA

* Americans for Truth

* Christian Information Service

* Christian Civic League of Maine

* Concerned Women for America

* Culture Campaign

* Defend the Family International

* Exodus Mandate

* Illinois Family Institute

* Indiana Voice for the Family

* Informing Christians

* Liberty Counsel

* MassResistance

* Mission America

* New Generation Christian Center

* Parents' Rights' Coalition

* Right March

* Stephen Bennett Ministries

* Values USA

* and Watchmen on the Walls

District bans 'John 3:16,' promotes demonic leer
Court filing seeks elimination of penalties for Christian art

A court in Wisconsin has been asked to suspend immediately a policy in the Tomah Area School District that bans Christian symbols in students' artwork, but allows Hindu, Buddhist and satanic representations.

The motion was filed yesterday by the Alliance Defense Fund, which has taken on the case of a student identified by the initials A.P.

The ADF launched a lawsuit on the student's behalf after a teacher refused to give him a grade on a project because his work included "John 3:16" as well as "As sign of love."

The school district, however, openly acknowledged and publicized various pieces of art representing Buddhism, and Hinduism as well as several demon faces that appeared satanic.

The school defended its actions:

"Respect for the beliefs of a diverse student population … requires that the district treat all students equitable and fairly regardless of their faith," it said in a website statement.

"To meet our responsibilities, students are required to follow the rules of conduct for their classrooms and the instructions that their teachers give them for class assignments. While the district respects all students' religious freedoms, those freedoms are not a license for students to force the school to display religious messages of their choosing…"

The ADF said the teacher's grading policy banned depictions of "blood, violence, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs."

But in practice it was a discriminatory policy, the ADF said in a court motion seeking an immediate injunction against the school.

"Allowing demonic depictions by some students while prohibiting Christian religious expression in artwork by others is a blatant violation of the Constitution," said David Cortman, senior ADF legal counsel.

The lawsuit was filed late last month after the student's artwork was rejected, then he was told he had signed away his First Amendment rights at the beginning of the semester in order to participate in the class.

The ADF's motion noted: "While penalizing A.P.'s religious express, defendants prominently display[ed] in the school's hallway a large painting of a six-limbed Hindu woman riding a swan figure. … Elsewhere, on a hallway bulletin board, there hangs a drawing of a robed sorcerer."

The law firm said the district displays artwork reflecting Hindu, Buddhist and satanic themes all over.

"It is displayed in classrooms (including the very classroom where district officials met to reiterate to A.P. that his Christian religious expression warranted no constitutional protection)," the law firm said.

The lawsuit names as defendants the school district, administrator Robert Fasbender, assistant principal Cale Jackson, and faculty members Julie Millin and Margi Genrich.

"The fact that the student was not only refused a grade on the project, but given two detentions creates "a draconian atmosphere … [that] evinces a manifest hostility toward Christianity," ADF said.

No such "waiver" of the student's First Amendment rights is applicable, either, the firm said.

"A waiver for First Amendment rights will be found only on the basis of clear and compelling evidence that the party understood his rights and intentionally relinquished or abandoned them," the law firm argued.

"At the time he signed the policy, A.P. had no idea that it would be so restriction of religious expression in the class … And the facts show that at the time that A.P. signed the policy, he did not think that including something like a small cross, or a simple scripture verse reference, would be subject to censorship…"

Further, the student is a minor and was denied the opportunity "to seek advice from counsel" before being required to sign, ADF said.

"An incredible fact in this case is that in the very same room in which defendants Jackson, Millin, and Genrich conducted their parent-teacher conference with A.P. and his family – and reiterated their policies banning student religious express in class assignments – defendants displayed student drawings of the Greek goddess Medusa; a demonic figure with horns, scales, and protruding tongue; several demonic masks; and a drawing of the Grim Reaper, holding a scythe," ADF said.

The injunction is needed immediately because of the passing of time and loss of grades for the student, the law firm said.

"Here, the school permits some religious expression in its classrooms and hallways, so long as it is not Christian religious expression," the ADF said.

Louisiana courthouse's lone Jesus painting deemed unconstitutional
Apr 17 '08
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
Associated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Displaying a portrait of Jesus in the foyer of a Louisiana courthouse is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled this week, siding with civil libertarians who sued over the display.

But inserting Jesus within a group portrait of historic figures at the courthouse is permissible, the judge said.

In a ruling filed Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle awarded "nominal" damages plus attorneys' fees and costs to the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana in its case against Slidell City Court, Judge James Lamz and St. Tammany Parish, which partially finances the court.

Lemelle said during a hearing last September that he would have ordered court officials to remove the Jesus icon if they hadn't already expanded the display to include portraits of other historic "lawgivers," including Moses, Charlemagne and Napoleon Bonaparte.

His ruling this week echoes those remarks and explains that the expanded display is constitutional because a reasonable observer wouldn't see it as sending a religious message.

However, Lemelle concluded that the plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated by the original display, which depicted Jesus presenting the New Testament above the words, "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws."

"Context" is the "crucial factor" in determining if a religious display is unconstitutional, Lemelle wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Ten Commandments display on the grounds of the Texas state capitol was constitutional, in part, because it was accompanied by other monuments and historical markers, Lemelle noted.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that a Ten Commandments display in Kentucky was unconstitutional because county officials there had "specifically expressed their intent to erect and maintain a religious display," Lemelle wrote.

J. Michael Johnson, an attorney representing the defendants for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group, said he is disappointed by Lemelle's ruling and may file an appeal.

"It's unfortunate that the ACLU seems to be on a search-and-destroy mission for all things religious," he said.

Marjorie Esman, the ACLU chapter's executive director, said Lemelle's decision appears to be consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings in similar cases.

"We've always felt that this was a very clear-cut case," she said. "There was no need to break new ground on this."

The ACLU sued the lawsuit last year on behalf of an unidentified person who complained about the original display. Esman said the ACLU's objections were satisfied by the expansion of the display.

Lemelle gave the plaintiffs 10 days to propose a "reasonable" award for attorney's fees and costs. The ACLU has asked for only $1 in damages.

Louisian courthouse's lone Jesus painting deemed unconstitutional (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/COURT_JESUS_PAINTING?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US)

Brothers and Sisters,

I feel led to make a few comments. Some might disagree and that's fine.

1 - Most of the people reading this live in free countries where the people are IN CHARGE, and the people choose OR REMOVE their representatives. Further, the rights of the PEOPLE are SECURED BY LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTIONS!

2 - LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS are plural because there are numerous LAWS and numerous CONSTITUTIONS that apply to our CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! There are numerous layers and levels of PROTECTIONS to PREVENT TYRANNY AND TRAMPLING OF THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS! COLLECTIVELY, the citizens are CAESAR for Biblical Principles because the PEOPLE ARE IN CHARGE!

3 - The LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS are made by the people, for the people, and they belong to the people. BLUNTLY - we don't HAVE RULERS OR DICTATORS! Our LAWS, CONSTITUTIONS, AND FOUNDING DOCUMENTS recognize ONLY ONE POWER HIGHER THAN THE COLLECTIVE POWER OF THE PEOPLE: ALMIGHTY GOD!

4 - There are many people who don't like the idea of people being able to vote and collectively having the authority and power to MAKE LAW, CONTROL GOVERNMENT, and overall define our way of life. Some wish to USURP or otherwise REMOVE THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE, and THAT CAN'T BE DONE IN OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT!

5 - I feel that Christians have a duty to participate in their own governance to the limit of the law, especially considering the facts that failure to participate can impact the overall well-being of our lives, the lives of our children, and the lives of future generations. By "Overall Well-Being", I would obviously be including morals, values, ethics, and the Biblical Principles which are our foundation.

6 - Those who wish to EXCLUDE GOD AND BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES from our society and way of life have ONLY TWO CHOICES: a) Move to a different country; b) Become the majority and LEGALLY CHANGE OR REMOVE OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS! As Christians, we should NOT ALLOW any more than these two choices. This is how our WAY OF LIFE was founded, and it's the ONLY WAY THAT OUR WAY OF LIFE CAN BE DISSOLVED!

7 - Christians need to stand up and exercise the COLLECTIVE POWER that we already have in OUR OWN GOVERNMENT! This will also mean standing up for GOD and Biblical principles. It will be to our SHAME AND DISGRACE if we are ASHAMED to stand up for GOD and Biblical principles. We currently have this RIGHT, and this RIGHT pertains to many other RIGHTS we currently have. These RIGHTS are actually our entire way of life, including our FREEDOMS TO WORSHIP GOD, raise our children in the WAYS OF GOD, and LIVE IN THE WAYS OF GOD! Christians need to stand up and remain standing to accomplish two things: a) Keep and maintain our RIGHTS; b) Take back RIGHTS that are our's that were removed WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW!

8 - What happens if we allow our RIGHTS to be REMOVED OR ERODED? Aren't we smart enough to figure out the answers to this question? Please allow me to start a list that will be JUST THE BEGINNING: a) Raising our children in the LORD; b) Ministering to our families and others; c) Worshiping GOD; d) Sharing GOD'S WORD with others, including the entire world; e) Living in a society or environment of DECENCY that has always been defined BY OUR LAWS!

Students proclaim 'take-your-Bible' day
Rally in support of teacher ordered to hide Good Book

Students at the Mount Vernon, Ohio, school district have called a 'take-your-Bible-to-school day" tomorrow in support of a popular teacher who has been ordered to keep his Bible hidden while students are in his classroom.

Coach Dave Daubenmire of Pass The Salt Ministries and Minutemen United, who is acting as a spokesman for teacher John Freshwater, told WND the campaign has been organized by students using cell phones, text messaging and e-mails.

"It's for both middle school and high school," Daubenmire told WND, with plans for students to not only carry their Bibles, but to wear Christian-themed T-shirts.

WND reported just one day earlier when the dispute arose, with orders from school officials for Freshwater to hide his Bible from students and Freshwater's decision to not comply.

School Board president Ian Watson told WND the Bible was just part of a "tapestry" of issues the district was dealing with, but he said he could not provide details on other factors. He did admit that the order for Freshwater to remove the Bible from his desk, where he's kept it for more than two decades while teaching in the district, was prompted because of contacts from some district parents. But again, he declined to elaborate.

Daubenmire, however, said the Bible is an important part of Freshwater's life, to the point he carries it with him when he parachutes into forest fire zones during his summer work as a smokejumper in the American West.

He also has worked to smuggle Bibles into China, Daubenmire said.

In an interview with WND, Watson accused Freshwater of "going public" with issues the school "is in discussions with attorneys at this stage."

"We just asked him that the Bible not be on top of his desk during his teaching hours," Watson told WND. However, he also admitted that the school had no formal prohibitions on personal items on teachers' desks.

When asked how the school arrived at a ban on Freshwater's personal Bible being on his own desk, Watson said, "I do not know how to answer."

The verdict on a forums page in the local Mount Vernon News was siding pretty much with Freshwater.

"It is his Bible and [he] has every right to keep it with him. End of story," said the first commenter among a long list submitted anonymously.

"He should be allowed to have his Bible on his desk. It's sad that this country is trying to remove God from everything and we are suppose (sic) to be a Christian country," said the second person in line.

"Are you kidding. Let's put more effort into removing guns from schools, before we chase after Bibles," said the third.

"Stand firm, Mr. Freshwater! I was in a class of Mr. Freshwater's approx 20 years ago. I remember the Bible being on the desk. He never taught from it nor preached for it. So why … ask him to remove it now?" said another.

Freshwater held a news conference yesterday to confirm he was not planning to follow the school dictate, and Daubenmire said local counsel was being arranged should the teacher need legal representation.

Daubenmire has had his own experience with such perspectives, having been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1999 for praying with his football teams while coaching in Ohio.

The school also told Freshwater to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments from a collage in one location in his classroom, a demand Freshwater agreed to fulfill.

But he said the district must prove to him how it can order him to remove his personal Bible from his desk without infringing on his God-given and First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

"John Freshwater has sounded the alarm and we have hope that his cause will not die for a lack of a second from the church leadership in Mount Vernon," said Jim Harrison, national director of Minutemen United.

"This is an incredible opportunity to right some historical misconceptions about the church and state relationship in our great nation," Harrison said.

Daubenmire said the school's demand amounts to an ongoing viewpoint discrimination, since a Muslim woman would not be ordered to hide her head covering from students' view.

The district's formal statement on the dispute said: "The Mount Vernon Schools today directed one of its middle school science teachers to remove from his classroom the 10 Commandments he had displayed and to remove his Bible from his desktop while students were in his room. The Mount Vernon Schools has not taken this action because it opposes religion, but because it has an obligation under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to protect against the establishment of religion in the schools. As a public school system the district cannot teach, promote or favor any religion or religious beliefs."

Daubenmire said, however, the school's demands go far beyond making sure it doesn't "establish religion" and reaches the level of a "continuous purging of Christianity."

In an earlier commentary for WND, Daubenmire framed the issue as a rampant attack singling out Christianity.

"Please notice that the attack on religious freedom in America is on Christianity. No one is trying to silence the religious freedom of Muslims or atheists or humanists. Quite the contrary. We are told to 'understand' Muslims, to be sensitive to the atheists and to tolerate the humanists and their various denominations of 'isms' (environmentalism, feminism, secularism, socialism, communism), which we teach openly in our schools."

"Our rights are God-given rights. They are not 'constitutional' rights," he continued. "Take some time and read the U.S. Constitution. You will see that it does not grant any rights to anyone. Instead, while setting up the federal government, the document (the first ten amendments) also prohibits the government from interfering with various aspects of human freedom. The first ten amendments limit what the government can do. They shouldn't be called the Bill of Rights; they should be called the Bill of Limitations."

Instead of claiming constitutional rights, citizens of the U.S. should proclaim their God-given rights, he said.

Street preacher claims police harassment
'I got the distinct impression they wanted me to move'

A man who wants to spread the word about Jesus in his town of Alma, Ark., says he was intimidated by officials from the local school district as well as police officers when they approached him on a public sidewalk and told him to find another place to preach.

Daniel Guyeski, who told WND he feels called to preach to his community, said a vice principal from Alma High School first warned him against speaking on the sidewalk, then two police officers approached him and made a suggestion.

"I got the distinct impression they wanted me to move," he told WND. He said he felt intimidated and left, instead of continuing his gospel message.

Police officials confirmed to WND they contacted Guyeski, but that he was on a public sidewalk and was doing nothing wrong.

Police Chief Russell White did, however, tell WND that there were "issues" with Guyeski and his office had been contacted by a nearby police department in Fort Smith about the preacher.

Guyeski said when police confronted him they also accused him of having issues with a girlfriend in Fort Smith, but he explained that that issue must concern someone else because he is married and lives in Alma.

Guyeski told WND he was preaching on the public sidewalk across the street of Alma High School when an assistant principal approached him and told him to move down the road, to a location near a fire station, and he complied.

Then, however, he told WND that officers from Alma's police department approached him, demanded his identification and then after the vice principal approached the group, told him, "You need to find a better time and place to preach."

"I was just doing some open-air evangelism," he said.

He said the vice principal warned him, "If I let you come and do that, I have to let everybody come and do that."

"They didn't want me out there. They were trying to make a claim I was standing on school ground while I was on the sidewalk in front of the fire station parking lot," he said.

Principal Jerry Valentine told WND that the school assumes it owns the property up to the street, including the sidewalk.

"He was on school property," Valentine told WND. "My assumption was that it was school property. I'll check with my superiors. I may be wrong."

He said Guyeski was told to get off of the sidewalk which the school believes it owns, and move onto city property.

Chief White said Guyeski was on a public sidewalk, but officers approached him because he was "waving his arms."

"We asked him to not impede with traffic," he said, and school officials said they, "did not want him on campus."

But White also suggested there were other issues, noting that "those same officers had contact with him that night." Guyeski explained the officers approached him at a library and asked him for his home address.

And White said his office "had had a call from another agency," and identified that as Forth Smith police. Guyeski said after officers questioned him about the Fort Smith issues, he called that police department and was told there was nothing going on.

Guyeski said he was in consultations about legal representation over the situation.

WND reported earlier when two members of The Gideons International were arrested while handing out Bibles on a public sidewalk near a Florida school over complaints from the school. The charges eventually were dropped.

Indiana Judge Dismisses ACLU Challenge, Upholds 'God' License Plate

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.

Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, said Thursday the ruling would be appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

"We're obviously disappointed," Falk said. "It's our position still that the differential treatment afforded between the environmental plate and the `In God We Trust' plate ... is unconstitutional, that the Legislature doesn't have the power to say the `In God We Trust' plate is free whereas the environmental plate carries an administrative fee.

"We're disappointed but we will continue to maintain our legal argument," Falk said.

The ACLU must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the court's ruling.

The lawsuit claimed the BMV gave preferential treatment to motorists wanting the plates, which also feature the U.S. flag, because they don't have to pay the $15 administrative fee that the agency collects on sales of most other Indiana specialty plates.

The 2006 legislation creating the plates specified the state could charge no more for the "In God We Trust" plates than for the standard plates.

BMV Commissioner Ron Stiver said Thursday more than 1.6 million people have selected the "In God We Trust" plate since it became available in January 2007 as one of more than 75 options for motorists.

"The BMV will continue its policy to offer all plate designs without promoting any one license plate design over another and will continue to offer the IGWT plate design at no additional charge, as outlined by the Indiana General Assembly," Stiver said.

Republican state Rep. Woody Burton of Greenwood, who sponsored the bill to create the plate, said he was pleased with the court ruling and confident it would withstand an appeal.

"When we wrote this law we wrote it as a standard license plate costing no extra money — we deliberately wrote it that way," Burton said, adding that it has been very popular among Hoosiers.

Church battles for property lost to bake sale tax dispute
'To put lien on worship facility over resale activity is ludicrous'

The city of Chicago has been handed another defeat in its effort to take over a church's property in order to use in it a redevelopment project, according to officials with the Alliance Defense Fund.

Government officials took title to the property after they first claimed the organization had failed to pay sales taxes on fundraising bake sales, even though such activities are exempt from sales tax requirements, and then sending notifications of the taxes due as well as the tax lien sale to the wrong address.

Officials with Beth-El All Nations Church now have gone to court to regain title to their facility, and yesterday a judge rejected an effort by city officials to have the action thrown out.

"The government should not demonstrate hostility toward religion by penalizing churches when there's clearly no reason to do so," said ADF Senior Counsel Joe Infranco.

"To put a lien on a church's property for the invented reason that the church somehow engaged in some undefined 'resale activity' and didn't collect and pay sales tax is simply ludicrous," said ADF-allied attorney and lead counsel Andy Norman of the Chicago law firm Mauck & Baker. "The court was right to allow the church's case against the city to proceed."

The long-running dispute dates back to shortly after the church acquired its property in the Chicago neighborhood of Englewood in 1976 and rehabilitated the location to begin worship services.

While there were no complications at first, about 1986 Cook County officials decided that the church no longer was exempt, and started assessing property taxes, totaling more than $100,000 between the period 1986 to 1995.

The law firm said the issue was that county officials had decided the church was engaging in an unspecified "resale activity," but church officials said the only such event that could be described that way – even remotely – would be its fundraising bake sales, which in Illinois are not subject to sales taxes.

Then because of "numerous procedural errors" by government officials, the church never was informed of the taxes, or the government's later decision to put a lien on the property, or the eventual tax sale through which the county obtained a title to the church. The county later re-assigned that to the city of Chicago.

According to documents in the case, among other mistakes that happened, was a notice to the church about its right to redeem its property.

"An employee of the city of Chicago mistakenly addressed a notice to Beth-El All Nations Church at 1534 East 63rd Street, instead of Beth-El's true address, 1534 West 63rd Street," court records note. "The notice was pretty important: it advised the church of its right to redeem title to the 63rd Street property after the parcel was sold for delinquent taxes."

Similar mistakes had happened with earlier tax notifications, the court documents confirmed.

"Despite the misaddressed notice, the city acquired a tax deed to the 63rd Street property in 1998. … The city sought to oust Beth-El from the property in 2006," but a federal complaint was filed to correct the government employees' mistakes.

According to the ADF, the site long has been desired by government officials to be used in a redevelopment project there.

The documents in the case reveal that the not only did the city use the wrong address, it then represented to the court "that all required notices had been served."

The church said the 1998 proceedings should be set aside because "the tax deed had been procured by fraud or deception."

Bishop Edgar Jackson, the pastor since 1995, testified the church never was located at 1534 East 63rd Street, and that he hadn't been told of any disputes over what he assumed was the church's tax-exempt status.

A state court ruling sided with the city, concluding the city's mistake should be overlooked and it could take over the property, but in federal court, the church alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment for "unreasonable search and seizure" and other violations.

A judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, at one point scolded the city for its actions. Ordering the church to shut down, he said, could cause "severe harm" and result in "losses to the community that could not be quantified in dollars and cents … In fact, it is entirely unclear why the city would desire such an asset to the community to cease its operations…"

Pharmacists' rights of conscience protected – for now
Appeals Court protects Christians as Plan B case progresses

Pharmacists who have moral objections to dispensing chemicals that cause abortions have won the latest battle in their war with the abortion industry, which is trying to force them to dispense drugs such as RU-486 in violation of their conscience.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that pharmacists in Washington state will be protected during an appeal by state officials who earlier imposed a requirement for them to dispense abortifacients.

The ruling means, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, that a court order to suspend those newly approved state rules will remain in effect during arguments in the case.

The state regulations were written to force pharmacies and pharmacists to stock and distribute abortion-inducing drugs regardless of their religious or moral opposition.

"Pharmacists and other health-care workers shouldn't be punished for abiding by their beliefs," said Erik Stanley, a senior counsel for the ADF. "They should never be forced to abandon their pro-life convictions in order to appease a government agenda, even while an appeal moves forward in court.

"No one should ever be forced to choose between keeping their career and honoring their faith," he said.

The 9th Circuit said in its ruling last week that the state of Washington failed to demonstrate that the abortion-inducing drugs, including the so-called "Plan B" drug, weren't readily available already.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington several months ago had issued a preliminary injunction against the new state rules during the course of a lawsuit filed against state officials over the issue. The state then asked that to be overturned.

When the case was filed, Kristen Waggoner, of the Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry, said, "The right to conscientiously object to the taking of human life is deeply rooted in our nation's history and laws. The 'morning-after' pill can unnaturally and deliberately kill innocent human life."

The lower court's original order found "the regulations appear to target religious practice in a way forbidden by the Constitution" "and "appear to intentionally place a significant burden on the free exercise of religion for those who believe life begins at conception…"

The case developed when Kevin Stormans, an owner of Ralph's Thriftway, got a telephone call about the availability of Plan B. After discovering the abortion-inducing results, Stormans, a Christian, decided his store would not stock the product.

Activists then launched a picketing campaign against him, and filed complaints with the Washington Board of Pharmacy. Eventually his company, along with two individual pharmacists, were forced into the court action.

The battle, however, won't be concluded when the appeals court eventually decides this case.

WND has reported Democrats in Congress have been proposing fines for pharmacies of up to $500,000 if the pharmacists follow their conscience and decline to dispense abortifacient chemicals.

"Pharmacists are professionals, not vending machines," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said at the time "The FDA has been known to make mistakes in approving drugs, and doctors have made mistakes in prescribing. Pharmacists provide a line of defense to ensure that patients' lives and health are protected and can make patients aware of ethical concerns.

"Yet this bill would punish pharmacists up to $500,000 for acting on their ethical duty," she said.

The new plan, called the "Access to Birth Control Act," originally was pushed forward by U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Among the groups supporting the requirement were NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.

The law also allows "any person aggrieved" to file a civil lawsuit for "appropriate relief, including actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and cost."

Christian pharmacists already have taken stands that have cost them their jobs. Four Walgreens pharmacists were put on unpaid leave in an earlier case in Illinois.

Ann Polka, the manager for the Belleville, Ill., Catholic Diocese's Project Rachel, a post-abortion healing program, said the action was "unjust."

"They are being let go because they couldn't in good conscience dispense the drugs," she said.

Plan B essentially is a very high dosage of birth-control chemicals taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent ovulation or implantation. If ovulation is prevented, no egg is fertilized and no pregnancy occurs. But if ovulation has taken place and the egg is fertilized, the morning-after pill works to block implantation by the early embryo in the mother's womb. The embryo is aborted, making dispensing prescriptions for the pill a matter of conscience for pro-life pharmacists.

John Menges, one of the four Illinois pharmacists, said the FDA erred in classifying Plan B as an oral contraceptive since it performs the work of an abortifacient.

"This punitive bill would bankrupt pharmacists for doing what they believe protects people from harm," said Wright. "We need pharmacists with strong convictions about protecting life and health, but this bill would drive people with such convictions out of the pharmaceutical profession – which would be detrimental to all patients."

She noted that "ardent abortion activists" are promoting the plan, even though it would "criminalize 'freedom of choice' by forcing people to act against their beliefs."

Pharmacists For Life International, a group that opposes abortion, cites a study showing seven of 10 pharmacists believe they have a right to conscience in refusing to fill prescriptions for drugs that violate their moral, ethical or religious beliefs.

Military honchos 'suppress'
chaplain's Baptist services
Was told being 'born again'
has 'no place' in Army life

An investigation is being sought by a Christian church organization in the United States after the U.S. Army deliberately shut down a service one of its sponsored chaplains was running for U.S. military service personnel at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq.

The complaint by Associated Gospel Churches, a fellowship of Independent Fundamental Christian churches, has been forwarded to the Army by U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., seeking an Army Inspector General investigation.

Rev. G. William Baugham, the chairman of the AGC's commission on chaplains, told WND that the circumstances are particularly egregious since it appears it was a representative from another Christian denomination that closed down the service that had been operated at FOB Loyalty by Chaplain Stuart Kazarovich, who has been endorsed by the AGC.

The services held by Kazarovich were shut down for five weeks, from July 8-Aug. 12, 2007, the organization's report on the situation confirmed.

"Because this information is now in the public domain, the AGC acknowledges that the Fundamental Baptist service led by Chaplain Stuart Kazarovich, an AGC endorsed chaplain, appears to have been suppressed because it was offensive to the brigade chaplain," Baugham told WND in a prepared statement.

"AGC believes the Army's initial response was slow and ineffective, despite the unprecedented depredation of basic constitutional rights of the fundamental Baptist congregation," he continued. "In short, this calls attention to the suppression of a Fundamental Baptist service and the command's insensitivity to religious hostility."

A comment could not be obtained from the Army immediately on this case, but WND has reported earlier on issues within the corps of chaplains for the U.S. military because of some members were approved for those posts by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who at the time headed the American Muslim Council, and now is serving a 23-year prison sentence on federal terrorism charges.

WND also has reported on the battle waged by Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who actually was separated from the military for his decision to pray "in Jesus' name."

Rev. Baugham indicated the facts in the new case are disturbing.

He said Kazarovich was assigned as a battalion chaplain in 2006 to a unit in Fort Carson, Colo., during its preparation for deployment to Iraq.

"Kazarovich's sending church is an Independent Baptist Church," he confirmed. "[He] immediately began experiencing hostility from his brigade chaplain directed at [Chaplain] Kazarovich's Fundamental Baptist beliefs."

"This included criticisms of his sermons and his answers to soldiers' questions concerning how they could have peace with God and the assurance of salvation, which address basic Christian beliefs," he said. "At one point, his brigade chaplain is alleged to have said that being 'born again' has no place in the Army."

Once in the war zone, Kazarovich started a Christian service that was attended by more than 30 soldiers at FOB Loyalty.

"One of those who attended was a self-identified agnostic who said that it was the one service that he found challenging and thought provoking," Baugham said.

Then for a scheduled rest and recreation leave, Kazarovich arranged to have the service continue. However, "his brigade chaplain canceled the services [and] upon CH Kazarovich's return from R&R July 24, 2007, the brigade chaplain told CH Kazarovich there would be no more Fundamental service," Baugham said.

Soldiers then rebelled, Baugham confirmed, contacting AGC for help to re-establish the service.

Baugham said he wrote the battalion commander suggesting the censorship was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Constitution's Free Exercise, Establishment and Due Process clauses, and also contacted the division chaplain and chief of chaplains.

Not only did 34 of the soldiers from Kazarovich's congregation sign a petition seeking a return of the service, some of the family members of those soldiers as well as soldiers' pastors joined in, he said.

"It is overwhelming evidence that in the minds of these soldiers, their service was suppressed and the command had no intention of reinstituting it," he said.

"Out of respect for the Army's and Chaplain Corps' commitment to free exercise, the AGC attempted to resolve the problem through the appropriate Army channels. AGC issues this press release because the incident has become more widely known and believes the public has a right to the basic information without impeding the ongoing investigation," Baugham said.

He said the initial military investigation alleged the service was "suspended" for the five weeks it was not allowed, even though he had exchanged letters with the battalion commander prior to the suppression attempting to resolve "what appeared to be the brigade chaplain's harassment and intolerance of Fundamental Christian beliefs."

Jones' office could not comment on the issue today, although his office has been integral in fighting for the religious rights of military service members. A constituent earlier had notified him that a chaplain had asked him whether it would be allowed to mention "Jesus."

"He alluded to the fact that he and other chaplains had been asked not to mention Jesus Christ. This startles and frightens me that our faith is being infringed upon, even within our own military," the constituent said.

Another comment came in from an Army chaplain.

"The persecution centers on Christian chaplains praying in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," he wrote. "My 'Christian' group leader was indignant and ridiculed me for praying in Jesus' name and for suggesting that I would have an altar call during chapel services that I lead," the chaplain, whose identity was withheld, wrote.

"Additionally, he said, it is offensive to pray in the name of Jesus and is against Army policy to do so."

Jones also earlier rallied help for an Army chaplain who was serving in Iraq but was removed from his chapel for speaking to the media about the importance of the freedom to pray according to his faith tradition. The chaplain later was reinstated.

The issue of praying in Jesus' name also has come up in the setting of public facilities in the United States.

But it is the case of Klingenschmitt that so far has raised the most serious questions about the military's treatment of Christianity.

He was convicted by the Navy of failing to follow a lawful order because his superior didn't want him praying "in Jesus name." But when Congress got word of his $3,000 fine for his prayer, members ordered the Navy to remove the limitation and allow chaplains to pray as their "conscience dictates."

District drops 'John 3:16' ban
Allowed Hindu, satanic symbols in student work but not Christian

An art policy at a Wisconsin high school that allowed images of Buddha, the Grim Reaper, demons and Medusa but banned the Bible reference John 3:16 is being changed as the result of a student's challenge to the district.

The turnabout came after Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of a student at Tomah High School who was given a "zero" grade for refusing to remove the words "John 3:16" and "a sign of love" from an art project.

The student, identified as A.P. in the suit, was told by his teacher that the cross and biblical reference on his drawing needed to be covered because they were sparking comments from other students. He was then shown a policy banning depictions of "blood, violence, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs," which A.P. had signed to participate in the class.

Under the terms of the settlement reached yesterday, Tomah Area School District officials have removed the ban on religious expression in class assignments. A.P.'s artwork has been graded, and all references to the detentions have been cleared from his record. The school also agreed to pay A.P.'s attorney fees.

A.P. received a B+ for his artwork, ADF said.

Censoring A.P.'s work on religious grounds smacked of hypocrisy, the ADF lawyers argued..

"While penalizing A.P.'s religious expression, defendants prominently display[ed] in the school's hallway a large painting of a six-limbed Hindu woman riding a swan figure," the complaint said. "… Elsewhere, on a hallway bulletin board, there hangs a drawing of a robed sorcerer."

The school also houses a sitting Buddha fountain, and a replica of Michelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance. Other students have their religious artwork on display, including drawings of Medusa and the Grim Reaper and masks of devil-like figures.

"Allowing demonic depictions by some students while prohibiting Christian religious expression in artwork by others is a blatant violation of the Constitution," said David Cortman, senior ADF counsel.

ADF also argued in its suit against the policy prohibiting religious expression that A.P. was compelled to sign.

When A.P. was confronted by his teacher, she showed him the policy and explained that he had "signed away his First Amendment rights."

But A.P. tore the policy in protest, an act for which he received a pair of detentions, denying any such surrender of rights.

“The student was correct," Cortman explained. "A public school cannot require students to sign away their constitutional right to free speech and religious expression. Furthermore, other students created artwork in violation of this illegitimate policy, but no action was taken against them. Only our client was singled out."

Hello Pastor Roger,

The devil hates John 3:16 because it contains the TRUTH about victory over the devil.

(John 3:16 NASB) "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

(John 3:17 NASB) "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

(John 3:18 NASB) "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

(John 3:19 NASB) "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

(John 3:20 NASB) "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

(John 3:21 NASB) "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
________________________

Brother, we both know there is great power in John 3:16, and the few Verses following John 3:16 explain that power. JESUS CHRIST is the LIGHT OF THE WORLD and coming into HIS LIGHT is a beautiful and eternal VICTORY! We are living in a day and age where the devil is doing everything in his power to hide the TRUTH that sets men FREE from the curse of sin and death. I think that the young man who did this art project understood the power of John 3:16, and I give thanks that he wanted to share it with his classmates. I firmly believe that GOD used it and GOD is still using it.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Ephesians 2:8-10 NASB For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Quote from: Pastor Roger on May 22, 2008, 10:12:23 AM

Way to stand strong A.P.! Hurray for this student!

Brothers and Sisters,

Having the continuing freedom and safety to distribute GOD'S WORD AND HIS GOOD NEWS is something we should all pray about every day. It's horrible to think that this freedom might be taken away, but we're living in a day and age when this could easily happen, even in this part of the world. We should all pray that GOD keeps the channels of distribution open because of the great hosts who are still desperate for the GOOD NEWS.

We should think about Christians all over the world who are being persecuted, beaten, imprisoned, and killed simply for being servants of GOD. I feel quite sure that they considered the Salvation of the lost to be more important than their own personal safety. The number of Christian martyrs is growing rapidly, but the devil has not been able to stop GOD'S WORK. The Holy Bible tells us that GOD'S WORK will never be stopped, even during the seven year Tribulation Period. Great hosts will be saved during the Tribulation Period, even though sharing GOD'S WORD will bring an immediate death penalty. We should pray for the persecuted BODY OF CHRIST around the world and know that things are going to get much worse during the Last Days. I've thought about and prayed about what to do if our freedoms are removed. I feel led to pray for courage and continue to serve GOD in whatever way that HE wants to use me. If that means physical death, so be it. It has resulted in the death of countless Christians through the ages, BUT HE IS WORTHY! ALL GLORY MUST BE GIVEN TO GOD!

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Corinthians 2:7-16
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Romans 8:14-15 NASB
For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

2 Timothy 1:7-12 NASB
For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.

Secret plans under way to tear down Christian symbols
Army says chapel crosses violate policy

U.S. soldiers stationed at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo may be stunned to find three wooden crosses stripped from the exterior grounds of their chapel in coming weeks – and many never saw it coming.

Several high-ranking officers have met behind closed doors to discuss plans for the crosses. They have decided to remove, and perhaps destroy, the Christian symbols located outside Peacekeeper's Chapel in the name of free exercise of religion.

Lt. Col. William Jenkins, 35th Infantry Division's Kosovo Force 9 command chaplain, told WND, "The removal of the crosses … is bringing the chapel into line with long-standing regulations and policies that apply to every U.S. Army chapel around the world and that are supported by all faith groups in the U.S. Army."

Jenkins cited the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as validation for the cross removal, saying it guarantees every American the right to the free exercise of religion. He also referenced an Army directive that bans religious symbols from chapels:

Distinctive religious symbols, such as crosses, crucifixes, the Star of David, menorah, and other religious symbols, will not be affixed or displayed permanently on the chapel exterior or grounds. (Army Reg. 165-1, 13-3.d)

Army chapels are also required to be devoid of religious symbols on furnishings, such as altars, pulpits and lecterns.

"This is not a new regulation and exists to protect the free exercise of religion of all soldiers," Jenkins said. "Army chapels are for all soldiers of all faith groups."

Following a secret vote, several officers decided to take down the crosses as part of a "relandscaping" project. Only one person present at the meeting voted against the measure.

Soldiers say high-ranking officers have been secretive about plans for the crosses and have not made an official announcement to troops – leaving most in the dark about plans until the crosses have been removed.

The crosses will be replaced with a stone monument engraved with the name of the chapel and the crest of U.S. Army Chaplain Corps, Jenkins said. At the time of this report, there were no indications of plans to notify soldiers of the decision.

Although the camp itself was named after Sgt. James Bondsteel, a soldier who earned the Medal of Honor in Vietnam, high-ranking Army personnel have also decided to remove a memorial plaque dedicated to fallen Chaplain Gordon Oglesby, who served and died in Kosovo, because it violates a policy against naming a chapel after a soldier.

One person stationed in Kosovo became concerned about freedom of religious expression in the military after WND reported the Army deliberately shut down a chaplain's Baptist service at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq. The soldier expressed agitation at a perceived double standard after an American sniper accused of shooting a Quran for target practice faced disciplinary action and removal from Iraq for desecrating the religious property.

"It is very discouraging as a Christian soldier to see our Army punish him for destroying a Quran, but then it pays a private company to destroy some crosses," the soldier said. "I feel it is a slap in the face to me, my Lord and my freedom."

Quote

"It is very discouraging as a Christian soldier to see our Army punish him for destroying a Quran, but then it pays a private company to destroy some crosses," the soldier said. "I feel it is a slap in the face to me, my Lord and my freedom."

This is a sickening article, and it should give every Christian more than a hint about how far our country has fallen. I think it is also a SIGN of the times that we live in. It's almost unmistakeable that we are beginning to see the devil roam freely. GOD is in his way, so GOD is being shoved out. It appears that every effort is being made to ignore and disrespect the things of GOD. The same thing is happening in many of our so-called churches. At the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, there will be ample reasons for HIS RIGHTEOUS WRATH! HE will provide absolute proof that HE is GOD, and HE will subject all things under HIS feet. HE will crush evil and reserve it for HIS Eternal JUDGMENT - the fires of HELL! HE won't just claim what is HIS - HE'LL take it, and there will be no question that HE Alone RULES as the KING OF KINGS!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 2:1-5 NASB
The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths." For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war. Come, house of Jacob, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.

Isaiah 9:2-7 NASB
The people who walk in darkness Will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them. You shall multiply the nation, You shall increase their gladness; They will be glad in Your presence As with the gladness of harvest, As men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For You shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders, The rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian. For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult, And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Texas accused of 'viewpoint discrimination'
Organization staffed with Ph.D.s denied permission to offer degrees

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School has accused Texas officials of participating in illegal "viewpoint discrimination" for refusing it a Certificate of Authority to grant degrees.

The Texas Higher Education Consulting Board recently rejected the formal application from the ICR graduate school program even though the organization now is approved to grant degrees by the state of California, and has been for decades.

The organization said today that it wants the education agency to reverse its rejection of the ICR plan to grant Master of Science degrees.

The petition paves the way for ICRGS to file a legal action against the state agency and its officials. Named in the action that cites the state's unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination are Commissioner Raymund Paredes, Assistant Commissioner Joseph Stafford, Academic Excellence Committee chairman Lyn Bracwell Phillips and other THECB board members.

According to ICR, they "denied the application of ICRGS because its program is based on a creationist interpretation of scientific data rather than an evolutionary interpretation, which is prevalent in public education."

The organization said its formal petition includes 26 evidentiary appendices that support the academic freedom and other legal rights of ICRGS to offer its 27-year-old graduate program to Texas residents. The petition also was delivered to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott because of the alleged constitutional violations.

WND reported earlier when the state made its decision. It came despite the face the ICRGS faculty sports Ph.D.s from UCLA, Penn State, the University of Montana, Colorado State, Case Western and Indiana University, and has a few lowly Ed.D. degrees thrown in.

The rejection came on the recommendation of Paredes despite earlier approval recommendations from a site team dispatched by the state agency to evaluate the education offerings as well as the agency's advisory committee.

In a situation that appears to be an example of the academic censoring described in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled," state officials even read into the record for the agency's hearing a state statute regarding "fraudulent" education programs without giving supporters of the ICR program an opportunity to explain or respond.

"Expelled" covers the following key questions:

* Were we designed or are we simply products of random chance, mutations and evolution occurring without any plan over billions of years?

* Is the debate over origins settled?

* How should science deal with what appears to be evidence of design?

* What should be taught to children and college students about our origins?

* Is there any room for dissent from the evolutionary point of view?

* Is it appropriate for eminent scientists who depart from strict evolutionary dogma to be fired and blacklisted, as is occurring in academia today?

* Should government schools and other institutions be engaged in promoting the secular, materialistic worldview to the total exclusion of differing points of view?

* Is science so advanced and so certain that it should be exempt from the societal norms of open dialogue and free debate?

* Why is it simply inconceivable and unacceptable for some evolutionists to consider the possibility – no matter how remote – that our world might actually have a Creator?

"This is the second time in 18 years that a state's top educational authority has attempted to thwart the Institute for Creation Research's ability to offer master's degrees in science and science education," said a statement from the Answers in Genesis organization.

"Such a setback for a school – which has several qualified Ph.D. scientists on its faculty – merely confirms what the just-released film 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' has been exposing: academia will not tolerate any challenge to evolutionist orthodoxy and will suppress the liberties of Darwin-doubters," AIG said.

ICR has been issuing master's degrees in California since 1981. In 1990 it overcame a challenge from state educational officials who tried to deny the school the opportunity to offer degrees.

Henry Morris III, the chief executive officer for the ICRGS, said the school prepares students to "understand both sides of the scientific perspective, although we do favor the creationist view."

Churches 'harassed' in Minnesota

Officials in Ramsey County, Minnesota have sent letters to more than 800 churches and related entities there demanding various documents to justify the tax-exempt status of the ministries. Christian legal experts call the move illegal harassment.

Douglas Napier, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the county is violating state law just by requesting the information. "Government officials have no right to harass churches in violation of state law," says the attorney. "And the county needs to realize that its threats to revoke the tax-exempt status of hundreds of churches, unless those churches submit their laundry list of documents, is [sic] clearly a violation of Minnesota law."

He says the county assessor's goal is not entirely clear. "It appears from the letters that they're on a fishing expedition to find out anything and everything that they can to possibly disqualify these churches," says Napier, noting that the only issue applicable is property tax. "So if it's land -- whether it's developed or not -- they are trying to, apparently, look for a way to disqualify them from their tax-exempt status for that land," he suggests.

Napier says that, at this time, the church's suit against the county does not address the First Amendment issues that are part of the case because the Minnesota law against what the county is doing is so clear. "It's simpler than even understanding the First Amendment," remarks the attorney. "They've got specific laws on the books in Minnesota that tell them that churches don't have to do this. And, certainly, from a First Amendment standpoint, there are serious issues of entanglement here, and overreaching."

ADF attorneys have already gotten the court to bar the county from collecting property taxes from one of the churches while a lawsuit against the county proceeds. Napier hopes the court will simply enforce the existing state law against the county and leave the churches alone.

"We just want them to back down and respect the nature of the churches and continue to acknowledge their tax-exempt status," he shares.

Judge overrules city stall on Christian school project
City had erected rules to slow or prevent campus construction

A Catholic school has been given court permission to start building its new campus in Suwanee, Ga., even though city officials imposed a building moratorium and started assembling a new set of demands for construction project applicants when they discovered the school's plans to move to the town.

The ruling in the case involving Notre Dame Academy comes from Judge George Hutchinson in Superior Court for Gwinnet County after the issue was raised by lawyers for the school, from the Alliance Defense Fund.

"Plaintiff has … made out a prima facie case that the city has violated the 'equal terms' provision of [federal law] by virtue of its apparent use of the moratorium to target Notre Dame's planned use of the land for its religious school. In this regard, one of the defendant's city council members acknowledged in an e-mail to a Notre Dame representative that Notre Dame's plans to relocate to Suwanee [were] at least one of the motivating factors for the moratorium," the judge wrote.

"And city Planning Director Josh Campbell acknowledged that 'it was not a coincidence' that the moratorium was implemented shortly after Notre Dame inquired as to whether it would be able to locate its new campus on the land," he continued.

Lawyers for the school had cited the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that determines zoning officials cannot impose "unduly burdensome" regulations on religious organizations on grounds it obstructs their right to free exercise of religion.

"Religious schools should not be singled out for discrimination by a city's zoning restrictions," said ADF Senior Counsel Joe Infranco. "Federal law prevents zoning officials from singling out religious organizations for discriminatory treatment. We are greatly pleased that construction of the elementary school can begin so that children can benefit from it sooner rather than later."

The Catholic school serving about 500 students in kindergarten through 8th grade had planned to move from an older campus in Duluth, Ga. Last February, school officials contracted to buy about 36 acres of land in Suwanee where they planned to build new school buildings and related structures.

But city officials within days imposed a new ordinance regarding "orderly growth" that adopted a 90-moratorium on building permits. However, the court noted that the language of the moratorium is ambiguous and it's not certain restrictions would have been lifted at the end of 90 days.

Then the city's planning commission started the process to adopt rules that would have forced Notre Dame into a special use permit process to develop its land.

The court said the case met the federal law's definitions of religious institution as well as land use regulations. Further, the city plan would have violated the "substantial burdens" provision of the federal law, the ruling said.

"The city's actions have caused, and will likely cause in the future, substantial additional delay, cost and uncertainty for Notre Dame's plans," the judge wrote. His order requires the city to set aside its moratorium and not to re-enact any such limits in regard to the Notre Dame project.

The ADF noted the land had been zoned for use as a school even before the dispute arose.

"The city had no right to increase bureaucracy for the Catholic school," said ADF-allied attorney Jonathan Crumly, who represented the academy. "We hope other cities will understand the rights that religious schools have under federal law."

Coach fired for alleged religious pressure

A high school principal in Dearborn has dismissed a longtime wrestling coach after complaints from Muslim parents that the coach's former assistant -- an evangelical Christian pastor -- was trying to convert Muslim students into Christians.

But the pastor, Trey Hancock, head of Dearborn Assembly of God, said today that he never mixed his religion with sports. And the coach, Jerry Marszalek, said that Hancock "never did that ... he knew the difference between church and state."

Imad Fadlallah, head of Fordson High School, decided this month not to renew the contract of Marszalek, who has coached wrestling at Fordson for 35 years. Marszalek is an at-will employee and so the principal has the right not to extend his contract, said David Mustonen, spokesman for Dearborn Public Schools.

Fadlallah, the first Muslim principal at Fordson, heads a high school where more than 80 percent of the students are of Arab descent, a majority of them Muslim. In recent years, parents and students have complained that Hancock was using his position on the wrestling team to convert Muslims – a claim Hancock strongly denies.

“When I coached, I never preached, I never witnessed,” Hancock said.

Fadlallah's decision was praised by Arab-American Muslims at a packed board meeting Tuesday night that was standing room only; hundreds of Muslim parents, students, religious leaders, and community advocates showed up in support of him.

"Fordson was a mess before he came," said Ali Reda, a sophomore at Fordson, who attended the Tuesday meeting.

During the public comments section, which went until midnight, speakers praised Fadlallah and said he was being unfairly attacked because of his Arab ethnicity and Muslim religion.

But Hancock and Marszalek said they are the ones who are being unfairly attacked. A few years ago, Marszalek hired Hancock as an assistant coach in a non-paid position; he said that Hancock was an excellent coach.

But in 2005, Hancock came under attack by some Muslims after he baptized in Port Huron a Muslim student from Dearborn.

“If people want to come to Jesus, I’m here for them,” Hancock said. He added that such activities were done outside Fordson and the wrestling team.

Marszalek said Fadlallah then told him to remove Hancock and keep him away from wrestling practices and events. Marszalek said that Fadlallah told him this month he was removing him because he ignored his earlier directive.

Trey's son, Paul Hancock, is a member of the Fordson wrestling team and so Trey Hancock would often attend meets and practices.

Fadlallah was not available for comment today.

Marszalek said he met last week with state officials in Lansing, including a representative from the office of Attorney General Mike Cox, to discuss his options.

Islam-promoting principal defied order to protect kids
Students required to attend CAIR indoctrination event

A public school principal in Texas who arranged for an Islamic instruction presentation for students by an organization whose leaders have been linked to terror groups apparently arranged for that indoctrination after being told not to by her district's superintendent, parents have told WND.

The issue developed this week when public school students at Friendswood Junior High in the Houston area were herded into an assembly scheduled by Principal Robin Lowe that suddenly replaced a scheduled physical education class, according to reports.

There, two women from the Houston division of the Council on American-Islamic Relations instructed students that Adam, Noah and Jesus are prophets, announced "there is one god, his name is Allah," taught the five pillars of Islam, told students how to pray five times a day, and instructed what Islamic religious rules require for dress.

Pastor Dave Welch, spokesman for the Houston Area Pastor Council, confirmed the indoctrination had taken place and called it "unacceptable."

"The failure of the principal of Friendswood Junior High to respect simple procedures requiring parental notification for such a potentially controversial subject, to not only approve but participate personally in a religious indoctrination session led by representatives of a group with well-known links to terrorist organizations and her cavalier response when confronted, raises serious questions about her fitness to serve in that role," the pastors' organization said in a statement.

A parent, whose name was withheld, reported the presentation was 30 to 40 minutes long and handled by Muslims from CAIR, which, as WND has reported, is a spinoff of the defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, launched by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and former university professor Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

It has a history of links to questionable activity. Among the convicted CAIR staffers are former communications specialist Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the U.S. and sent several members to Pakistan to join a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida; and Bassem Khafagi, who was arrested in January 2003 while serving as CAIR's director of community relations and convicted on fraud and terrorism charges in connection with a probe of the Islamic Assembly of North America, an organization suspected of aiding Saudi sheiks tied to Osama bin Laden. Also, in October 2006, Ghassan Elashi, a member of the founding board of directors of the Texas branch of CAIR, was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for financial ties to a high-ranking terrorist.

Welch told WND today that parents have told him school officials confirmed to them that the principal in question had been instructed not to involve students in any such program.

A mother who had alerted some of the other parents about the situation when she discovered the circumstances told WND, "The superintendent told this principal that the children could not be part of this assembly. It happened anyway."

"The school board member I talked to … he was outraged," Welch told WND. "This is part of a nationally orchestrated effort to indoctrinate students through the school system," he said.

School officials did not return WND calls seeking a comment.

WND previously has reported how public school textbooks used across the nation have begun promoting Islam, teaching even the religious doctrines.

WND also has reported on several other schools that have taught Islam as a required subject.

In the Texas case, a school e-mail to parents provided only a half-hearted acknowledgement that such mandatory religious indoctrination might not have been the best decision.

"In hindsight, a note should have been sent home to parents indicating the purpose and content of the presentation in time for parents to contact me with questions or concerns or requests to exempt their child," the note from Lowe said. "This will be our practice in the future, should we ever have another presentation of a similar nature."

The apparent goal of the "Islamic Awareness" presentation was "to increase understanding of the Islamic culture in response to racially motivated comments that have been made to students on campus."

The pastors noted that the principal's claim there were "comments" to students on campus was unverified. Nor does that excuse or justify "this infringement upon the religious beliefs of students and parents of the community nor the violation of school policy and possibly state and/or federal law," they said.

"We do not believe that this unapproved action by Principal Robin Lowe represents the school district and certainly not the majority of students or parents in the Friendswood community. Our commitment is to support all appropriate administrative, legal and political remedies to assure that this will not happen again and these Islamic activist organizations are kept out of our schools," the pastors said.

The parent reported Lowe told students her sister, niece and nephew were Muslim.

But the parent complained the Muslims "were given full attention of our kids, during academic school time, to present their religious beliefs. … This was put right at the end of the school year … which will most likely prevent a Christian response.

"The kids did not even know they were having an assembly or what topic it pertained to until they entered the gym," the parent wrote. "I send my kids to school for academics. … I teach them religion at home."

Noted a WND reader: "All I could think while reading this was what would have happened to this school had it been Christianity being taught?

"Then I thought, 'So where's the ACLU and the other complainers?' … I guess some religions are more equal than others."

Brothers and Sisters,

We shouldn't be naive. This principal knew exactly what she was doing. She should be held completely responsible, regardless of whether it's the end of the school year or not. She should be fired.

I would also like everyone to know there is another side of the coin to all of the organized problems we read about in schools. My wife has been a teacher for over 30 years, and many of our friends are teachers and/or school administrators. They have resigned from the unions and other teacher organizations pushing garbage like this, and they stand against it. So far, there has been grossly insufficient power in our school district to pull any of the Islam or sex garbage. So far, the power in our school district is Christian traditional by overwhelming percentages. However, I'm not hinting this couldn't change. I'm just telling you that the devil will have an uphill battle here, and the vast majority of the teachers and principals WILL NOT cooperate with the devil. I'm also not saying there have been no negative effects here. They are using textbooks with GOD removed, and many other things involving GOD have also been removed. The loss of these things could be viewed as serious defeats, but at least all of the replacement garbage has been refused so far.

I just wanted everyone to know that there are STILL many Godly teachers and administrators in this country. Furthermore, Godly parents should get behind them and support them in any way that they can. Sooner or later, all Christians are going to be persecuted, and that certainly includes Christian teachers. Please don't take the remaining Christian teachers for granted. Pray for them often, thank them every now and then, and encourage them to keep up the good fight. Please don't wait unless they have all given up to think about them and pray for them.

Yuma church fights for its rights

A Christian church is suing the City of Yuma, Arizona, for denying it the right to meet at a building the church owns in the city's historic district.

Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenos Nuevas Christian Church wanted to expand its outreach into the Old Town District of the city of Yuma. Byron Babione, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the church even consulted city officials about their plans to relocate to the historic area.

"They purchased a building [in the district] upon recommendation from city officials that that would be a good place to have a church," Babione explains. "So they bought on old building that was formerly a J.C. Penney, years ago -- and in the last couple of decades it's really remained largely vacant."

The church planned to revitalize the structure and hold their weekend worship services there, in addition to numerous community outreach functions throughout the week. They applied for a conditional use permit, which is required only of religious gathering places.

"But the planning commission for the City of Yuma denied them and said that they weren't a good fit for the Old Town District," says Babione. According to ADF, members of the Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission determined the church was inappropriate for the area because it would not generate tax revenue and would not attract patrons for the stores in the district.

Babione says the problem with that decision is that the city allows other assemblies and membership organizations, including tax-exempt non-profit groups, to locate in the district -- and denial of the church's permit, he argues, violates federal law and the Constitution.

"That runs counter to equal protection principles and the principles in the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which says that governments, municipalities, cannot treat religious assemblies on worse terms than they treat non-religious assemblies," says the ADF attorney.

The church has filed suit in federal district court for Arizona asking that its proposed use of the property be allowed and that the city's discriminatory ordinance be ruled unconstitutional.

6th-grader warned: Stop wearing pro-life T-shirts
'It's scary to stand up to people in authority,' says mom of boy on a mission

A 12-year-old 6th-grader in Hutchinson, Minn., committed to an unusually brave mission for the month of April: he intended to wear T-shirts with a pro-life message to his middle school every day for a month.

His courage, however, was met with resistance. According to the boy's attorney, his principal and teachers told him "not to wear the T-shirts, publicly singled him out for ridicule in front of his classmates, removed him from class, sent him to the principal's office, forced him to turn his pro-life T-shirt inside out, and threatened him with suspension if he did not stop wearing the offending pro-life T-shirts."

Over the course of his one-month quest, the boy, identified only as K.B., was reprimanded by the school a dozen times.

"We're a Christian family," his mother told the St. Paul Pioneer Press. "He knows (abortion) is the termination of life. He knows that it's wrong. He should have the right to wear the shirt to express that. Even if he's the only person at the school who believes that, he should still be able to wear that shirt under the Constitution, and they've taken that away from him."

K.B. began his T-shirt mission in honor of April 29th being designated "National Pro-Life T-shirt Day" by the American Life League, a group that calls itself the "largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States."

K.B. took it a step farther in opting to wear his T-shirts – sometime inside-out as demanded – for a month.

The shirts themselves, all produced by the American Life League, displayed photos of unborn babies and pro-life messages. One shirt read, "Abortion: Growing, Growing, Gone," a second read, "What part of abortion don't you understand?" and the third read, "Never Known – Not Forgotten" on the front with "47,000,000 babies aborted 1973-2008" printed on the back.

K.B. reported that he was first confronted on April 2nd by a teacher saying that the shirt "could be offensive." On April 4th he was sent to the principal's office because, his teacher said, the shirt was "inappropriate for class." In mid-April, K.B.'s mother reports, the school principal told her in a phone conversation that the shirts were forbidden because they had become a distraction and "some of the kids were starting to ask questions." On April 25th K.B. was threatened with in-school suspension.

When April 29th arrived, the day designated as "National Pro-Life T-shirt Day," the school principal called K.B.'s homeroom and ordered the boy to his office. "Why do you keep wearing those shirts when you know that they annoy me?" the principal allegedly asked.

Throughout that day, K.B. was singled out by his teachers, their displeasure with him and with his shirts made publicly clear.

Hutchinson school district policy specifically states that schools are not to "abridge the rights of students to express political, religious, philosophical, or similar opinions by wearing apparel on which messages are stated." The policy does prohibit lewd, vulgar, obscene or profane messages.

"We allow (a slogan on a T-shirt) as long as it doesn't interrupt or disrupt the educational process," the school's superintendent told the Student Press Law Center. "It's not necessarily the message, but if it's offensive or if it disrupts the (educational) process."

K.B. and his mother, Jeanne Ibbitson, claim that the shirts contain no offensive material and if there's been any disruption in the educational process, it's come from teachers objecting to the message.

Lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center, a non-profit law firm whose purpose is to provide "legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square," has now filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court to defend K.B.'s Constitutional rights.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, "This courageous young Christian was ridiculed and threatened by teachers for expressing his deeply held beliefs. These school officials clearly violated the U.S. Constitution and the school's own written dress policy, which specifically states it is not intended to abridge the rights of students to express political or religious messages."

Specifically, the lawsuit charges that the school's actions run counter to the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which clarified that schools cannot censor student speech without a reasonable expectations of "material and substantial disruption" or invasion of other's rights.

"They allow students to practice their First Amendment rights as long as it's not disruptive to the learning process and as long as it's not lewd, vulgar, obscene or profane," said a spokesman for the Law Center. "According to the Supreme Court and many circuit courts, you can't bootstrap that into (banning) unpopular or unpleasant viewpoints."

The lawsuit seeks recognition that the school has violated K.B.'s rights and that it applied its dress code in an unconstitutional manner. It asks that the court instruct the school to no longer reprimand or discipline K.B. for exercising his rights, and it seeks a jury trial to determine damages. Ibbitson explained to the Pioneer Press how, in part, her son has suffered from the school's reaction. "He shouldn't have lost his reputation as a good kid," she said. "He shouldn't be known as the kid who is constantly going to the office. They look at him as defiant now."

She nonetheless praised her son for standing for his convictions. "I applaud him. He is really shy. And it's scary to stand up to people in authority," she said. "It was hard for him to get up every day and put the T-shirt on and go to school to try and carry on his mission for the month."

Islam-promoting principal out
District announces 'new position' for controversial administrator

A principal who staged a mandatory lesson in Islamic religious beliefs for nearly 900 students at a public school near Houston has been reassigned, the district announced.

The controversy erupted at Friendswood Junior High when students were diverted from a scheduled physical education class and taken to an assembly set up by Principal Robin Lowe.

In the 40-minute session, representatives of the Houston office of the controversial Council on American- Islamic Relations, an organization critics link to terrorist groups, presented a 40-minute lesson in the religious beliefs and requirements of Islam.

The CAIR representatives instructed students that Adam, Noah and Jesus are prophets; announced "there is one god, his name is Allah"; taught the five pillars of Islam; told students how to pray five times a day; and gave instruction on Islamic religious requirements for dress.

The assembly had not been authorized by the district, officials confirmed.

Trish Hanks, the Friendswood superintendent, said had been asked about having such a presentation because of allegations made by a Muslim who claimed to have been involved in an altercation.

Hanks told parents in a memo she had authorized the presentation for staff members only, not students.

"My concern for our community and for our students is not as much with the content of the presentation as explained to me," she wrote, according to a Houston Chronicle report, "but with the fact that a group had an audience with our students without consent from parents or this administration.

"I am not surprised by the community's reaction," she continued. "Most of you receiving this letter have had years of experience with this district and know the kinds of activities your child has been exposed to in school. This was an isolated incident and a mistake."

Texas Education Agency officials confirmed that state law allows parents to remove their children from activities or classes that violate their religious or moral beliefs.

There was no information available on Lowe's new position. The district's brief statement said Lowe "has accepted another administrative position effective immediately."

Parents and community leaders had been outraged by the presentation, especially because parents were not notified and given the opportunity for their children to opt out.

"We are very pleased that Supt. Trish Hanks and the Board of Trustees have been so responsive to the community and taken appropriate action," said Pastor Dave Welch, a spokesman for the Houston Area Pastor Council, an inter-denominational organization closley monitoring the issue.

"We believe that the school officials are very committed to complying with existing laws, policies and parameters addressing religious expression, activities and beliefs in public schools. It is our commitment to working with them to bring the highest level of expertise to assist them," he said.

"Finally, we are not going to let the primary issue slide by of this highly controversial Islamic activist organization slipping into schools for the purpose of mainstreaming radical Islam using our children. We plan to implement a review of every school district in the greater Houston area and ultimately throughout Texas to make sure that neither CAIR nor any similar group gets a free pass with their agenda under the guise of diversity training," said Welch.

A spokesman for CAIR's Houston office, Tarek Hussein, told the Houston paper he contacted Lowe asking to do an "educational presentation" after a man reported his son was attacked because he is Muslim.

Hussein, however, declined to provide details about the alleged attack.

Hanks told the Chronicle she decided the staff members could be given the information, but no assembly would be allowed to indoctrinate students.

"I presented [to students] who Muslims are and the beliefs they have," Asma Siddiqi, one of the women who delivered the lesson to students, told the newspaper.

State Board of Education member David Bradley told the paper the assembly about Islam was a waste of tax dollars and not the way to respond to a dispute between students.

"There's a personal incident between two students and as a result of that we're going to yank everyone out of class?" he told the paper. "I got beat up in junior high. Did my dad go down and force all the kids to sit through sensitivity training in their P.E. class? No, that's absurd. The coach gave us licks and sent us home. That was the end of those incidents."

Hussein, however, told the newspaper he now will ask other schools in the area for permission to teach students about Islam during classtime.

CAIR, as WND has reported, is a spinoff of the defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, launched by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and former university professor Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

A number of CAIR employees have been convicted on terrorism-related charges. Among them are former communications specialist Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the U.S. and sent several members to Pakistan to join a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida; and Bassem Khafagi, who was arrested in January 2003 while serving as CAIR's director of community relations and convicted on fraud and terrorism charges in connection with a probe of the Islamic Assembly of North America, an organization suspected of aiding Saudi sheiks tied to Osama bin Laden. Also, in October 2006, Ghassan Elashi, a member of the founding board of directors of the Texas branch of CAIR, was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for financial ties to a high-ranking terrorist.

WND previously reported public school textbooks across the nation have begun promoting Islam, teaching even the religious doctrines.

WND also has reported several other schools have taught Islam as a required subject.

Historic district fights to keep cross
'We need not purge references to religion to satisfy militant atheists'

Officials in Frankenmuth, Mich., a city that was founded by Lutheran missionaries and today is known as "Michigan's Little Bavaria" for its heritage and beer festivals, have decided to fight to keep their city shield, which includes a swath of grain to represent the missionaries' farming roots, and a "Luther Rose" with a tiny cross in the center.

The emblem, and a related cross in the city park, have come under attack from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, according to officials.

"The council's unanimous vote to retain the Thomas More Law Center in the face of a previous attempt to remove the small cross from its city shield and now the more recent focus on the cross in Cross Park … reflects a deep commitment on the part of the council to defend these symbols of the city's unique history and culture," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the law center.

The city founders traveled from Bavaria in 1845 to settle a unique German community inside the United States. They are represented on the city shield by the swath of grain and the rose with the cross. Other parts of the shield depict the Bavarian region from which the missionaries came, officials said.

Today the city is a magnet for tourists and visitors who want to see the ethnic heritage that has made the city famous.

The council voted at a recent meeting to retain the TMLC to defend the shield, and its related cross in the city's Cross Park, from attack.

"These symbols serve to link and promote Frankenmuth's unique origins and history – all secular purposes," said Thompson. "The sign at Cross Park expresses gratitude from a people with a missionary history. We need not purge all historical references to religion merely to satisfy militant atheists."

There has been a complaint about the shield, and the city also has been on the receiving end of threats of legal action for the city park that was built in 1976. Cross Park was one of three projects the city created to celebrate the bicentennial of the United States. There's a log cabin as well as a cross in the park, "both representing the history of the founding of this 'grateful' community," officials said.

The German word "Franken" refers to the province of Franconia in Bavaria, and the word "muth" means courage, giving the city's name the meaning of "courage of the Franconians."

Christian symbols, such as crosses, however, have come under attack in recent days and years, including a plan to remove them from a chapel used by Christians in Iraq.

WND also has reported on a multi-year battle over a cross in a veteran's memorial in California.

Council: Mongtomery schools cave to pressue with Islam book

A new report issued by the American Textbook Council says books approved for use in local school districts for teaching middle and high school students about Islam caved in to political correctness and dumbed down the topic at a critical moment in its history.

"Textbook editors try to avoid any subject that could turn into a political grenade," wrote Gilbert Sewall, director of the council, who railed against five popular history texts for "adjust[ing] the definition of jihad or sharia or remov[ing] these words from lessons to avoid inconvenient truths."

Sewall complains the word jihad has gone through an "amazing cultural reorchestration" in textbooks, losing any connotation of violence. He cites Houghton Mifflin's popular middle school text, "Across the Centuries," which has been approved for use in Montgomery County Schools. It defines "jihad" as a struggle "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil."

"But that is, literally, the translation of jihad," said Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and acclaimed author of "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam." Aslan explained that the definition does not preclude a militant interpretation.

"How you interpret [jihad] is based on whatever your particular ideology, or world viewpoint, or even prejudice is," Aslan said. "But how you define jihad is set in stone."

A statement from Montgomery County Public Schools said that all text used by teachers had been properly vetted and were appropriate for classroom uses.

Aslan said groups like Sewall's are often more concerned about advancing their own interpretation of Islam than they are about defining its parts and then allowing interpretation to happen at the classroom level.

Sewall's report blames publishing companies for allowing the influence of groups like the California-based Council on Islamic Education to serve throughout the editorial process as "screeners" for textbooks, softening or deleting potentially unflattering topics within the faith.

"Fundamentally I'm worried about dumbing down textbooks," he said, "by groups that come to state education officials saying we want this and that - and publishers need to find a happy medium."

Maryland state delegate Saqib Ali refrained from joining the fray. "The job of assigning curriculum is best left to educators and the school board, and I trust their judgment," he said.

Quoting Scripture banned in library community room
'What next? Will board keep patrons from reading Bible?'

Quoting from the Bible has been banned in a community room at the public library in Clermont County, Ohio, and now a couple who sought to use the facility for a financial planning seminar have brought a court case.

"What's next? Will the library board attempt to keep patrons from checking out Bibles and reading them on government property?" asked Tim Chandler, a legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is working on the case involving George and Cathy Vandergriff.

The couple asked for permission to use a public facility at the library to hold a financial planning seminar with the Institute for Principled Policy.

Under the use policy for the facility, the meetings rooms there "are available to all community groups and non-profit organizations engaged in activities that further the Library's mission to be responsive to community needs and to be an integral part of our community," according to the lawsuit.

"When the Library's meeting rooms are not being used for library-related programs, the rooms are available for non-profit use by community groups. The groups may use meeting rooms for private meetings or to present programs for the general public," it continues.

However, when Cathy Vandergriff asked in person to use a meeting room for a financial planning meeting, the conversation with the library employee took an unwelcome turn.

"When Mrs. Vandergriff indicated that the seminar would be a free ministry to the general public, the employee asked if she would be quoting the Bible in the presentation. Mrs. Vandergriff answered that she would be using the Bible, and the employee informed her that the Library's Policy would therefore not permit her to use the meeting room," the ADF said.

When she followed up with a written request for the use of the facility, an employee again warned about the ban on quoting from the Bible, and the written rejection soon followed. It carried the hand-written notation: "Contact Mr. Vandergriff will be quoting bible versus [sic] explained our meeting room policy."

The ADF's complaint, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Ohio, requests a declaratory judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctions and damages and costs for the action.

"The … Clermont Public Library Board of Trustees … is prohibiting plaintiffs from engaging in expressive activities in a generally available public forum solely due to the religious viewpoint of those activities," the ADF said.

The library did not return a WND message requesting comment.

The complaint cites alleged violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution including the right to free exercise of religion, and the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses.

"The library has no compelling reason that would justify excluding plaintiffs from these generally available public facilities solely on the basis of the religious nature of plaintiffs' speech," the complaint said.

"Refusing to grant this group permission to hold a seminar at a meeting room in a public library because they planned to quote the Bible is about as blatantly un-American and unconstitutional as you can get," Chandler said. "Christian organizations shouldn't be discriminated against for their beliefs."

"The denial sends the message to the Vandergriffs and other Christians that they are not deemed a valuable part of the community. Christians have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else in America," the ADF's Kevin Theriot added.

"Any government policy denying equal access rights to a group simply because it intends on quoting Bible verses does not comport with the Constitution. This is a financial planning seminar, and the library has previously allowed meetings that discuss financial planning. The fact that they may quote Bible verses during the meeting does not legally matter."

The Institute for Principled Policy planned to sponsor the two two-hour seminars for 10 attendees April 18 and 19 at the library using Larry Burkett’s Crown Ministries materials.

Quote

The complaint cites alleged violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution including the right to free exercise of religion, and the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses.

"The library has no compelling reason that would justify excluding plaintiffs from these generally available public facilities solely on the basis of the religious nature of plaintiffs' speech," the complaint said.

"Refusing to grant this group permission to hold a seminar at a meeting room in a public library because they planned to quote the Bible is about as blatantly un-American and unconstitutional as you can get," Chandler said. "Christian organizations shouldn't be discriminated against for their beliefs."

"The denial sends the message to the Vandergriffs and other Christians that they are not deemed a valuable part of the community. Christians have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else in America," the ADF's Kevin Theriot added.

"Any government policy denying equal access rights to a group simply because it intends on quoting Bible verses does not comport with the Constitution. This is a financial planning seminar, and the library has previously allowed meetings that discuss financial planning. The fact that they may quote Bible verses during the meeting does not legally matter."

We were and are a nation of laws by the people and UNDER GOD! Our laws and Constitutions were designed to prevent tyranny and oppression of the people. Day by day, things are getting worse - and we are becoming like slaves of a corrupt government. Slavery is the correct term when there is a master who can take whatever he wants without your permission or due process. We have been far beyond JUST LEGAL TAXATION for over 60 years.

Quote from: Pastor Roger on June 10, 2008, 10:05:38 PM

NYC school displays offensive 'art'

A prestigious New York school is displaying supposed "art" that many Christians are finding highly offensive.

The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York City has displayed student art with vile and obscene depictions of Christianity. [Editor's note: The depictions are too graphic to describe herein.] Frank Russo of the American Family Association of New York says it is becoming more common for Christianity to be targeted -- but enough is enough, he adds.

"My view is that, in a free society, they are free to do that," the activist acknowledges. "What I think we [as Christians] are free to do, and I hope we consider something like this, is to publicize the names of people who are donating to Cooper Union and ask people to contact them about this. I mean, what do they think about this? I think that's also part of a First Amendment right in a free society," Russo contends.

The New York family advocate believes the school would not think of displaying such items if they targeted Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist themes. "But when it has to do with Christianity, somehow Christianity is viewed as a legitimate target of disgraceful and clearly sacrilegious actions by people," he argues.

Cooper Union is considered a prestigious school, especially in the field of engineering. Russo shares that he is disappointed in the school and no longer holds it in high regard.

There was a time not long ago that things like this were criminal offenses. They were covered under a variety of criminal statutes. Taking the LORD'S Name in vain was also a criminal act, and that hasn't been long ago at all. Lest we forget, we also have a history of laws requiring businesses to be closed on SUNDAY. NO - I'm not kidding at all - SUNDAY WAS RESERVED FOR THE LORD AND THIS WAS THE LAW NOT MANY YEARS AGO - BUT RECENTLY! It's sad that many of our younger people don't have a clue about our heritage and WHAT WAS for the vast majority of our existence. Nearly all public buildings and public documents had and have various references to ALMIGHTY GOD - RIGHTFULLY SO! It was and still is a common practice to have Christian symbols or references to ALMIGHTY GOD on City Seals displayed on everything the people of that City owned - including police cars, fire trucks, city stationary, and literally everything that it was practical to display the seal on.

Billboard proclaims: Imagine no religion
'We want to uphold the separation of church and state'

Denver's secularists wanting freedom from religion have taken over one corner in the public square to make the point.

They've emblazoned a billboard six blocks from the state Capitol with the message, inscribed over faux stained glass, "Imagine No Religion."

More than 2,000 religions have fueled division and rancor among peoples and hindered scientific and social progress, said Michael Lee Smith, local spokesman for the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The world would be better off without organized religion, he said.

The billboard, part of a national ad campaign, is scheduled to stand above West 14th Avenue and Fox Street through June and July. It will come down before the Democratic National Convention because the rate for that period was prohibitively high, Smith said.

The Fox Street billboard will cost local foundation supporters almost $3,000, Smith said.

"The religious right is not a majority, but it has a strong voice and a lot of influence," Smith said. "We want to uphold the separation of church and state."

A construction worker on the block, 37-year-old David Rodriguez, said his religion has been an important help in raising his family, yet he respects differing views.

Passer-by Joseph Sanchez, 23, said the billboard didn't upset him but that he doesn't agree with it.

"I'm not really big on organized religion, but I love religion," Sanchez said. "It's important for people to keep religion somewhere in the back of their mind but not to take it too seriously."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation's largest association of agnostics, atheists and devout secularists, has been active in Denver courts for many years.

Denver lawyer Robert Tiernan and the foundation worked to halt city sponsorship of a day of prayer promoted by the mayor's office when Wellington Webb held the post.

In 1990, Tiernan and the foundation threatened a lawsuit and ended a city subsidy for the Council of Colorado Churches' annual Easter sunrise services at the Red Rocks Amphitheatre.

"I always support their freedom of speech," council director Jim Ryan said of the foundation. "But the foundation is failing to acknowledge all the moral values and work for the common good that has grown out of faith traditions."

The foundation also tried, unsuccessfully, to litigate removal of the Ten Commandments marker on the Capitol grounds.

"The court said it was historical, not religious," Tiernan said. "The courts are so inclined toward religion it's disgusting."

Tiernan filed a lawsuit last fall, still pending, to end what he calls Cherry Creek School District's promotion of religion. He said the district lists developmental goals for students that include weekly participation in religious services or activities.

"There's another point of view besides the religious," Tiernan said. "We live here, too. There are a lot more atheists and agnostics than people admit. They need to come out of the closet."

Library shuts out Christians -- and everybody else

An Ohio county public library has closed its meeting rooms to the public rather than allow them to be used by a Christian group.

George and Cathy Vandergriff wanted to host a Crown Financial Ministries "Financial Freedom" workshop in a public meeting room at the Clermont County, Ohio, public library. Tim Chandler, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the couple was told that, because the class would be quoting from the Bible, they could not hold it at the library.

"The Supreme Court said, more than 25 years ago, that once you've opened up meeting space, you can't exclude anyone just because they're engaging in religious speech. And, here we are, we're still fighting this battle," Chandler contends.

ADF filed suit against the library on the Vandergriff's behalf. In the overwhelming majority of cases of this type, the government entity will back down after only a letter from attorneys threatening to sue. If not, they almost always give in when the suit is actually filed, which is why the Clermont Library's reaction shocked the ADF attorney.

"The library, in response to the lawsuit, has decided to close the meeting rooms and not allow anybody in the public to use them. So, this is the length that they're going to exclude Christians from being able to use their meeting space," Chandler explains.

ADF attorneys, according to Chandler, are examining their options before responding to the library board's decision. "This is one of the very first times that I've ever seen a government agency go through with actually shutting down a forum and making sure that taxpayers don't have access to the meeting rooms that they're funding, just to make sure that a Christian doesn't come in and quote the Bible in one of those meeting rooms," Chandler adds.

The board's action, Chandler says, creates a strong inference that it is willing to go to almost any lengths to discriminate against Christian speech. In a press release, the attorney describes the action as "about as blatantly un-American and unconstitutional as you can get."

Judge blasts state ban on distributing Bibles to students
Law unconstitutional because it 'encourages arbitrary enforcement'

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.

The Gideons' procedure is to notify local police departments two weeks before their distribution date, give school administrators notice and have participants stand on a public bike path or sidewalk and avoid stepping on school grounds.

But WND reported earlier when two members of the Gideons organization were charged for handing out Bibles there, and when a judge dismissed those counts.

Ernest Simpson and Anthony Mirto had been taken into custody by a sheriff's deputy and charged with trespassing after the principal of Key Largo School, Martinson, complained they were handing out Bibles.

The initial counts were dismissed at the request of the ADF shortly after the law firm got involved, but then authorities filed a second round of counts, under a different law – this state law that prohibits anyone from being within 500 feet of any school property, including on public sidewalks and streets, without having either "legitimate business" or permission.

The lawsuit at hand then was filed on behalf of Gideon Thomas Gray, who was not arrested with Simpson and Mirto but arrived when they called to report trouble with a particular deputy sheriff.

"Gray approached Officer [John] Perez and asked what the charges were. Officer Perez was highly agitated and said that Gray would know in 48 hours when he received the report," the judge said.

Gray contacted another deputy through whom he'd arranged for the distribution.

"Gray then called Deputy [Ralph] Williams and asked for his assistance … Deputy Williams indicated that he would e-mail Officer Perez … Gray told Officer Perez that he had an e-mail in his car from another officer stating that the Gideons have a right to distribute Bibles from the public bike path/sidewalk, but Officer Perez indicated that he did not care," the judge wrote.

The ADF reported the two Gideons who were arrested were "placed in a Monroe County patrol car. A police officer mocked the two men, saying they could 'pray to Jesus all the way to jail.'"

The ADF, after seeing that the charges against Simpon and Mirto were dismissed, filed the action on behalf of Gray, who said he feared arrest if he exercised his right to distribute Bibles.

The federal judge found that the state definition of a school safety zone, in the Key Largo School location, would include a public bike path and walkway abutting U.S. Highway 1, the highway itself and businesses including a pet motel, a gas station, a restaurant and a plumbing business.

"Given the wide range of non-exempt persons and the various types of areas within the school safety zone, such as sidewalks, residential houses and streets, businesses, parking lots, etc., construing 'legitimate purpose' to mean any purpose which is connected with the operation of the school would result in an application so broad that it would likely infringe of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights," the judge said.

He ordered the state never again enforce that particular law.

"Christians shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. "Arresting or threatening to arrest Christians simply because they choose to exercise their First Amendment rights in a public place is unconstitutional. The court was right in its assessment that the particular law used against these members of the Gideons does not pass constitutional muster."

In a statement at the outset of the case to WND, Becky Herrin, of the public information office in the Monroe County sheriff's office, stated as a fact that the defendants in the case did trespass. She later declined additional comment.

"A copy of our police report (see attached) … clearly states that the people in question were arrested for trespassing on school property – not on a public sidewalk… In fact, they were given the opportunity to step off school property and onto public property, and they could have continued with their activities if they had done so. They chose instead to remain, against repeated warnings, on school property so deputies were forced to arrest them," Herrin said in a statement to WND.

But the attached report forwarded to WND revealed the two were arrested while in their vehicle parked near, but not on, school property.

The Gideons, a group founded in the late 1800s, has as its "sole purpose" the goal "to win men, women, boys and girls to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ through association for service, personal testimony, and distributing the Bible in the human traffic lanes and streams of everyday life."

Gideons have placed the Bible in 181 nations in 82 different languages over the years.

The organization focuses on hotels and motels, hospitals and nursing homes, schools, colleges and universities, the military and law enforcement and prisons and jails.

"The demand for Scriptures in these areas far exceeds our supplies that we are able to purchase through our donations. Much more could be done – if funds were available. However, we are placing and distributing more than one million copies of the Word of God, at no cost, every seven days in these areas…" the group said.

The organization only gives away the Bibles with the Gideon logo on the covers, but plain Bibles are available for consumers to purchase at its distribution center at P.O. Box 140800, Nashville, Tenn., 37214-0800. Information about the products is available on the group's website.

The Gideons serve as an extended missionary arm of the Christian church and are the oldest Christian business and professional men's association in the United States.

Bible citation costs
couple jobs, home
Apartment managers evicted,
fired for being 'too religious'

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.

Last September a regional manager for Hallmark, Christina Saunders, visited the complex in anticipation of a government inspection and saw the glass artwork. According to a Liberty Counsel release, Saunders asked Sharon if the words on the artwork referenced the Bible. After Sharon confirmed they did, Saunders instructed her to take it down.

Sharon replied that she needed to consult her husband and co-manager, Daniel, and left the office to find him.

When the couple returned, Saunders had already removed the artwork, entered the Dixons' apartment without their permission and deposited the artwork there. According to the press release, she then said Sharon and Daniel were "too religious," fired them and demanded they vacate their apartment within 72 hours.

"Hallmark could have separated the Dixons' residence from their job, even with the termination," Staver told WND. "They could have stayed in their apartment, but (Hallmark) both fired and evicted them."

WND attempted to reach Hallmark Management for comment, but phone calls were not returned.

The Dixon's story moved to court today, as Liberty Counsel filed a suit in the Jacksonville federal court on the couple's behalf, claiming the Dixons were discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs.

According to the lawsuit, the only reasons given for the Dixons' termination were that the couple was "too religious" and that Sharon was insubordinate for not immediately removing the artwork before consulting with her husband.

The Agency for Workforce Innovation, however, which ruled in the Dixons' favor in their request for unemployment compensation, agreed that the termination was not based on job performance, finding that though the Dixons were charged with insubordination, "no information has been submitted which substantiates misconduct" and "the discharge was for reasons other than misconduct connected with the work."

The Dixons originally left their apartment in compliance with the eviction and currently reside in Jacksonville, Fla.

Board votes to fire 'cross branding' teacher
Christian instructor accused of imposing his Christian beliefs

A public school board in Ohio voted unanimously today to proceed with firing an eighth-grade teacher for allegedly teaching his Christian beliefs in science classes and "branding" students with crosses.

Responding to an investigation, the Mount Vernon School District board voted 5-0 to consider termination of John Freshwater's contract at its next meeting, July 7.

The report presented to the board today charged Freshwater used a high-frequency generator – a Tesla coil – to make a cross on the arms of students, taught the theory of intelligent design and refused to remove all religious articles from his classroom.

Board president Ian Watson told the Mount Vernon News the panel will proceed with termination at its July 7 meeting, unless Freshwater files a written request for a hearing within 10 days of receiving notice of the board's intent to fire him.

Freshwater and the school board have been sued by the parents of a student who says the teacher violated their son's civil rights by branding him on the arm with a cross. The mark lasted four weeks, the parents claim.

But a spokesman for Freshwater, Dave Daubenmire, downplayed the parents' accusations and called the investigation one-sided, with "old trumped-up charges brought back to the table."

Daubenmire insisted to WND that the "cross branding" was nothing of the sort. He characterized it as a science experiment Freshwater had been doing for 21 years in which he made X marks, not crosses, on the students' skin with a Tesa Coil to demonstrate electrical current.

"They tried to make it out to be a cross, because it made him look like some kind of idiot," Daubenmire said of the parents.

Daubenmire pointed out experts have affirmed the experiment causes no injury to students.

He said the experiment session at the center of the lawsuit, conducted in December, had already been investigated and dealt with.

Daubenmire argued that the accusations about teaching intelligent design or creationism date back to 2003, when Freshwater was challenging students to "clinically analyze evolution."

Just after the accusing family hired an attorney, school officials told Freshwater he had to remove all religious items from his classroom, including a personal Bible he had on his desk.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court, says, "Mr. Freshwater advised his students that although he is forced to teach from the textbooks, the teachings are wrong or not proven according to the Bible."

As WND reported, Freshwater took down the Christian items but refused to remove his Bible, which he has kept on his desk for 18 years.

Daubenmire, of Pass The Salt Ministries and Minutemen United, explained to WND at the time that Freshwater had not used the Bible in his interaction with students. But he said the teacher also believed he should not forfeit his constitutional rights just because of his occupation.

The lawsuit claims administrators knew Freshwater disregarded their instructions, but they allowed him to continue teaching and never disciplined him even after the branding, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

The district's attorney, David Millstone, told the paper the school administrators could not have disciplined Freshwater before completion of the investigation.

Pastor preaches politics, dares IRS to investigate
'We could lose our tax-exempt status. Are you prepared for that?'

Gus Booth, a pastor in Warroad, Minn., preached from the pulpit, "If you are a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama," knowing that he was violating federal tax code and jeopardizing his church's tax-exempt status by speaking against a specific candidate.

Then he wrote a letter to the IRS explaining what he did and challenging the agency to investigate him.

Booth told ABC News that the threat of the IRS revoking churches' tax-exempt status if they preach politics amounts to government censorship of religion and a violation of our nation's founding documents.

"I may be taking on the IRS," Booth said, "but the IRS has taken on the Constitution unchallenged since 1954. I feel like the only law that should dictate what I am allowed to say is the First Amendment."

In 1954 the IRS tax code was changed to forbid churches "from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."

If pastors target specific candidates, like Booth did in his sermon, their churches risk losing tax-exempt status.

Booth, however, sees the tax code as a violation of both the Bill of Rights and the words of God.

In his sermon, Booth explained his spiritual opposition to the tax code by quoting an 1863 sermon from Henry Beecher Ward: "It is sometimes said that ministers must not preach politics. … They would have to toe hop, and skip and jump through two thirds of the Bible if they did not, for the there is not another book on the face of God's earth that is so full of commerce and business and government, and the relations between the governing and the governed, as this same Bible."

Booth's sermon included several Scripture passages that he claimed clearly defined the biblical stance on marriage and abortion. Then he said, "You have heard our Lord's commands about the sanctity of life and marriage. You have heard the positions of the candidates. There is no middle ground in this election. … I urge you, when you enter that voting booth, to not vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or candidates like them that support and encourage activities our Lord condemns in the strongest terms."

Booth knows he has invited trouble, and he didn't do so lightly. "A month before I made the sermon I talked to the church leadership," he told ABC News. "I told them, 'If we do this we could lose our tax-exempt status. Are you prepared for that?' We spent a week in prayer, and I felt God was telling me to make that speech."

Trouble may have indeed found him. The Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sent a letter last week to the IRS urging the government to take Booth up on his challenge.

Barry Lynn, executive director of American United told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that churches need to choose whether they're going to be religious or political organizations. "Some churches have given up tax exemptions so they don't have to play by (IRS) rules," he said.

"Tax exemption is not a right; it's a privilege with certain restrictions," Lynn told ABC News.

"There is a very simple test religious leaders can use to determine if they're violating the law," Lynn said. "Ask yourself: 'Is what I'm doing intended to help someone's candidacy?' If the answer is 'yes,' don't do it."

Tax exemption is not a privilege the IRS has been ready to revoke easily, however. In 2006, the IRS received 237 complaints of groups abusing their tax-exempt status, investigated 100 and has yet to recommend revocation for any of them.

The last time the IRS revoked a church's tax-exempt status was in 1992, when a New York church took out an ad asking "How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?"

Booth's sermon may have sounded similar to the advertisement, but he believes pastors must be able to communicate specifically about the politics of the day to be able to faithfully preach the Bible and guide their congregations.

"It is my desire, and I dare say God's desire," Booth said in his sermon, "to use this pulpit to influence you and your family and friends to vote for the most biblical candidates this November. When you participate in the election process you allow God to participate as well (through you)."

Booth may soon have a large number of allies in his challenge to the IRS rules. As WND reported earlier, the Alliance Defense Fund, a religious liberty advocacy group, is asking for preachers to join in their Pulpit Initiative, an attempt to "reclaim pastors' constitutional right to speak truth from the pulpit" by inviting pastors on one Sunday to intentionally challenge the IRS ruling with the content of their sermons.

The event, planned for Sept. 28, will be a day for pastors to "evaluate candidates in light of Scripture," Eric Stanley, senior legal counsel for ADF, told ABC News. "Our hope is that the IRS will initiate investigations and we can bring this into the federal courts."

"This isn't about political speech; it is about religious speech," Stanley said. "Scripture applies to every aspect of life, including who we elect."

The ADF released a white paper on the Pulpit Initiative stating, "ADF believes that IRS restrictions on religious expression from the pulpit, whenever the IRS characterizes it as 'political,' is unconstitutional. After 50 years of threats and intimidation, churches should confront the IRS directly and reclaim the expressive rights guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution."

The ADF said its program will "equip, protect, and defend pastors who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit."

Pastors who want to participate can find information at a special page assembled on the ADF website.

Court to reconsider free-speech rights of evangelist

A federal district court has been ordered to reconsider a Christian evangelist's free-speech lawsuit against Ohio's Miami University.

Jim Gilles was handing out gospel tracts and witnessing to students on the public sidewalks on the campus of taxpayer-funded Miami University. But school security officials told Gilles to leave the campus. Gilles sued, but a federal district court dismissed the case, saying he had no legitimate free-speech argument.

Nate Kellum with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) says thankfully, that was not the end. "... [T]he Sixth Circuit disagreed with that assessment and has remanded the case back to the district court ...," he reports.

The court has been ordered to reconsider the case "in light of the proper constitutional standards." According to those standards, Gilles has the constitutional right to share his belief – "... [e]ven if those beliefs happen to be Christian."

Kellum says the public university proposed a novel argument to the court. The school stated that although the property is state-funded property, Gilles had to obtain their permission in order to have a conversation with another person.

"... [N]ow, there's no question that Mr. Gilles was free to be there. There is accessibility to him and any other citizen; there's no demarcation. [But] when he started to share his Christian beliefs, that's when Mr. Gilles ran into some problems," notes Kellum.

The ADF attorney says Gilles is not trying to cause problems for the university, but only desires the same rights as any other citizen sharing a non-religious message. Kellum argues that if an individual has the right to walk in a public place, one should have the right to talk there -- and that, he explains, is what Gilles is seeking from this action.

Judge bans Bible from school, appeal filed
'No court has provided a private right of veto over private religious speech'

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.

Among the "diverse" groups that have participated are the Army Corps of Engineers, Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Iron County Health Department, Missouri Water Patrol, Missouri Highland Healthcare and Union Pacific Railroad, officials said.

However, a recent distribution of Bibles by the Gideons supported by a local association of ministers prompted outrage from members of the American Civil Liberties Union, who filed a lawsuit seeking to censor the Bible.

School board members put into writing their open forum policy, specifically allowing material on a content-neutral basis unless the material fell into specific categories, such as pornography or advocacy of illegal activities.

Then U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry ordered the school to prohibit distribution of Bibles specifically, because she said they are an "instrument of religion."

Her ruling "presented a novel (and unconstitutional) theory that a private third party (like the ACLU) must have the opportunity to veto the distribution request of the private applicant," said Liberty Counsel. "The veto power, the judge wrote, must be provided to veto religious, but not secular, literature."

The school policy treats religious literature the same as secular literature as required by Supreme Court precedents, the law firm said.

"But Judge Perry ruled that religious literature, particularly the Bible, may not be treated the same. If a private third party, like the ACLU, cannot veto the request before the distribution, then, she ruled, the policy must be stricken. No court in the country has provided a private right of veto over private religious speech," Liberty Counsel said.

"The ACLU might not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but the Constitution requires equal treatment. The First Amendment protects private religious viewpoints. Hecklers may heckle but they may not veto private religious speech. The Bible is not radioactive. Religious viewpoints have Constitutional protection," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

Liberty Counsel said the documentation in the case simply confirms that school board members assumed throughout their discussions about the Bible distribution that they already had an open forum for distribution of any materials; they just didn't have a written policy, which they soon adopted.

The minutes from board meetings noted the board president "explained to the board at this point, we are an open forum and any group can request to enter our school and distribute materials – atheists, communists, gay rights, etc." The minutes note the board members acknowledged that.

However, Perry banned the district "from distributing or allowing distribution of Bibles to elementary school children on school property at any time during the school day."

"The district court also opined that 'Bibles are different' from other forms of religious literature," Liberty Counsel said.

In fact, the advocacy law firm said, the judge's ruling "has the troubling effect of permitting the distribution of certain religious texts, such as the Quran or the I Ching, while censoring only one, the Bible. Such a result is hardly consistent with our constitutional scheme.

The Gideons, a group founded in the late 1800s, has as its "sole purpose" the goal "to win men, women, boys and girls to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ through association for service, personal testimony, and distributing the Bible in the human traffic lanes and streams of everyday life."

Gideons have placed the Bible in 181 nations in 82 different languages over the years.

The organization focuses on hotels and motels, hospitals and nursing homes, schools, colleges and universities, the military and law enforcement and prisons and jails.

"The demand for Scriptures in these areas far exceeds our supplies that we are able to purchase through our donations. Much more could be done – if funds were available. However, we are placing and distributing more than one million copies of the Word of God, at no cost, every seven days in these areas…" the group said.

The organization only gives away the Bibles with the Gideon logo on the covers, but plain Bibles are available for consumers to purchase at its distribution center at P.O. Box 140800, Nashville, Tenn., 37214-0800. Information about the products is available on the group's website.

The Gideons serve as an extended missionary arm of the Christian church and are the oldest Christian business and professional men's association in the United States.

Legislator: Law allows banishment of Bible
'This is written so anybody can take any part and grow it into monstrosity'

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."

"I do believe that the Bible is banned, under the plain language of this new statute," said Steve Crampton, general counsel of Liberty Counsel.

Others represented at the news conference were WND columnist and national syndicated talk show host Janet Folger, who wrote "The Criminalization of Christianity;" Steve Curtis, president of the American Right To Life Action and former chairman of the Colorado GOP; Kevin Swanson of Christian Home Educators of Colorado; Mark Hotaling of Christian Family Alliance and Colorado for Family Values; and others.

Lundberg told WND the statute includes some "very troubling" provisions "that can be used in fairly heavy-handed ways. It goes so far and it goes so broad … the more I read it the more troubled I get."

He said Section 8, for example, regarding the publication of discriminatory material.

""When it was on the floor of the house and we were debating it I discounted the overall effect, thinking it applied to the posting of rules for hotels and lodging," he said. "When I more seriously looked at all the particulars, then it starts to encompass a prohibition on anything of a printed nature that's distributed or sold or shared for virtually any purpose."

Curtis told WND that the legal challenge will be launched soon by Liberty Counsel, and participants deliberately violated the law with a display of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, provided by the Denver Tech Center Marriott where the news conference was held at the same time as a pastors' conference at which former presidential candidate and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was a speaker.

"We questioned whether the Marriott Corp. was in violation for distributing [the books] to us," he said. "We displayed them, which is a violation, we sold Janet Folger's book, which is a violation. We gave it away, which is a violation.

"We will go ahead and continue to violate [the law]," he said. "Our challenge to the governor is go ahead and issue the citation, arrest us, do whatever you want."

Lundberg said it's clear the Bible could be targeted by those using the vague definitions in the law.

"If you're going to be distributing Scriptures, there are clear passages that someone of a homosexual orientation could easily find offensive," he said.

He said not only did Colorado lawmakers created an open-ended document, "any court could take it to whatever direction they wanted to take it, and they would have the authority of the statute to fall back onto."

The lawmaker said there is an exemption for churches, mosques and synagogues in Section 6 of the law, dealing with public accommodations. But that definition is only for Section 6 and doesn't apply to Section 8, restricting printed material, he said.

And he said the new burden for business owners will force Christians quickly to abandon their principles, or their business.

"When you read all of the particulars, you discover it is much more inclusive of any type of commerce," he said of the rules. "When I confronted the House sponsor [Rep. Joel Judd] in debate on a photographer who found it morally unacceptable to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony, the answer was, 'If you choose to do commerce in Colorado you have to abide by these rules.'"

There are two other important factors, he noted, including the law itself which includes not just civil, but criminal penalties of up to a year in jail, for violations. And the other is the fact the legislature included a "safety" clause in the law, specifying that the law is necessary for the safety of the state, which means voters cannot take the law and put it to a vote.

"The reason I consider this to be a big deal … to my knowledge people were going to exercise their rights with a citizens referendum, before [that right] was stripped away from them by the legislature," he said.

Curtis said his organization, American RTL Action, is a political 527 group headquarter half a block from where the legislature meets.

"We're not going to hire someone cohabitating outside of marriage," he said. "We will also violate SB200's prohibition on publishing certain biblical teachings on homosexuality."

WND reported earlier that one of the supporters of the bill, Cathryn Hazouri of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the state House Judiciary Committee: "One may practice one's religion in private; however, once a religious person comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of their religion impacts others."

The Christian publishing house Focus on the Family has called it a payback by the Democrat-controlled legislature and Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter to homosexual activists such as millionaire Tim Gill, who has donated widely to pro-homosexual political candidates.

The Focus analysis of the plan, according to spokesman Bruce Hausknecht, shows that besides the obvious impacts of opening restrooms and locker rooms statewide to members of either sex, depending on a perception of their gender, "the biggest danger this law poses is to the religious or moral consciences of small business owners who may object to doing business with people whose lifestyle they do not want to promote."

"Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?" Focus founder James Dobson said. "Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence."

A WND reader also expressed horror at the implications of the law.

"Now, as I stand outside of a movie theater bathroom or a swimming pool shower room door and guard the most precious thing in my life: my wife and daughter's safety, modesty and privacy, I can no longer stop a man from entering a woman's domain," wrote a concern resident whose name was withheld. "(I will anyway, that's why I'm a criminal!)"

"An act that once was criminal is now legitimate, and what was taught to me as a virtue is now a vice. Not only am I liable for civil penalties but criminal, as I can be sentenced for up to a year in jail," he wrote.

"Will SB200 be the end of it? No. Next, hate crime legislation must be passed so that it is illegal for me to write this letter (as it is now illegal in Canada); then enforced homosexual/transsexual indoctrination of our children in the public educational system; finally, all other alternative forms of education must be outlawed. Impossible, you say? It's already happened in California," he said. "As I'm being forced into this 'shotgun wedding' with the radical homosexual agenda, I hope it's not too late to 'speak now, or forever hold my peace.' What is it called when you are forced, against your will, to participate in a sexual lifestyle that you find objectionable? I believe that is called 'rape.' My state legislature has 'violated' me and charged me with the crime."

Tom Minnery, the senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus, said every Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owner now is under a threat.

"We've seen … charges brought by homosexuals against a video reproduction business in Virginia, a medical clinic in California, an adoption service in Arizona and a church in New Jersey," he continued. "Colorado tops them all on the potential outrage meter, however, because in addition to civil fines and penalties, small-business owners can be prosecuted under the criminal laws of Colorado and spend up to one year in jail for trying to live according to their faith."

'Gay' man sues
Bible publishers
$70 million for emotional distress
because homosexuality cast as sin

A homosexual man is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.

Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said.

He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.

Zondervan says that even if Fowler's claim is credible, he's suing the wrong party. A company spokesman told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that Zondervan doesn't translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations but relies, instead, on the "scholarly judgment of credible translation committees."

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent Fowler in the Thomas Nelson case, saying the court "has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims."

Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, says in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."

Fowler alleges both Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, with its King James Bible, manipulated Scripture without informing the public by using the term "homosexuals" in a New Testament passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Fowler, according to a post by JoAnne Thomas on RightPundits.com, explained his complaint on his own blog.

Thomas reproduced Fowler's blog post, including the spelling errors:

In 1970, I Corinthians 6:9 read as followed-

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulteres, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

In 1982 ,the same scripture read like this-

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodimites.

In 2001 the same scripture reads like this-

Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled, those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob thses people will not inherit God’s kingdom.

Fowler told the Grand Rapids TV station in an interview he wants to "compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability."

Zondervan, he contended, is misinterpreting the Bible by specifically using the word homosexuals.

"These are opinions based on the publishers," he said. "And they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life."

Christian counselor fired for trying to help lesbian
Referral to another adviser classified as 'homophobic'

A Christian counselor has been fired on directions from government officials for trying to help a lesbian by referring her to another adviser who was supportive of homosexual "marriage," according to a lawsuit filed on her behalf.

The action has been brought by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Marcia Walden, who was fired from her position with a contractor for the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta because her religious beliefs conflicted with the homosexual's goal of rebuilding a same-sex relationship and she reassigned the client to another counselor.

"A woman shouldn't lose her job for merely upholding the highest professional standards," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. "It is unconstitutional to punish Walden for following her Christian faith, particularly when she made every effort to accommodate the needs of a potential client. Referring her to another competent counselor instead of attempting to offer her own counsel in such a situation was the ethical thing to do for the person seeking help. It's egregious to be fired for honoring professional and ethical obligations."

The ADF lawsuit names the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the counselor's former employer, Computer Sciences Corp., as well as Christie Zerbe, an official with the CDC.

In August 2007, a woman working at the CDC sought help from Walden, a counselor at CSC which operated a counseling service under the federal agency's employee assistance program, regarding a same-sex relationship.

"Walden explained that the client's needs would conflict with her religious beliefs and that, therefore, it would be unfair for her to serve as the woman's counselor. As a result, Walden referred the individual to a colleague," the law firm said. "After the meeting with the client, Walden's colleague told her that she had done 'the right thing' by referring the woman to him."

However, it apparently was not enough that her counseling needs were addressed, because the lesbian complained about Walden, alleging the Christian counselor was "homophobic."

The lesbian, who was counseled by Walden's colleague, Ken Cook, told Walden's supervisor, Gordon Hughes, Walden should not be employed because of her beliefs and asked to file a formal complaint against her.

Walden explained the conflict between the woman's desire for furthering a same-sex relationship and her Christian beliefs and that that was the reason for her referral. She confirmed she had counseled other individuals involved in same-sex relationships for various reasons without complications when their issues did not conflict with her religious principles.

"Following this incident, Ms. Walden endured religiously based questioning from her CSC supervisors including Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes asked Ms. Walden why she told [the lesbian employee] about her religiously based conflict; he told Ms. Walden that if a similar situation arose in the future, Ms. Walden should tell the client something else – for example, that she was not experienced in relationship counseling – instead of discussing her religiously based conflict," the lawsuit said.

Walden responded that it would be inappropriate to misrepresent her conflicts.

The company told WND it would not comment on the case.

But Walden was placed on unpaid suspension on Aug. 24, and during that time Jacqueline Byrum, a CSC employee relations specialist, advised her to set aside her religious beliefs.

Then Zerbe, the CDC worker responsible for overseeing the employee assistance contract with CSC, demanded Walden be removed, and CSC then dismissed her, even before its investigation was finished.

The company said the results of its investigation didn't matter.

Within weeks, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a "right to sue" letter to Walden based on her allegations the CSC discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Walden's rights under the First and Fifth Amendments as will as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Civil Rights Act were violated, along with compensatory and punitive damages.

Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights
Dismisses free-speech case filed by Philadelphia 11

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.

Ted Hoppe, a lawyer allied with the Alliance Defense Fund, had argued in the appeal that, "Speech cannot be silenced simply because another person or group does not agree with it. City officials must be held accountable for their decision to violate the First Amendment rights of Christians who wanted nothing more than to engage in peaceful assembly on a public street."

Michael Marcavage, founder of Repent America and organizer of the event, said the lawyers were reviewing the appellate ruling and deciding whether there are further open doors for the plaintiffs.

Members of the "Philadelphia 11" as the group is known, were arrested Oct. 10, 2004, after quoting the Bible and expressing their views against homosexual behavior on a public street during "OutFest," a publicly funded celebration of homosexual choices.

They were jailed overnight in the case, but a judge later dismissed any criminal counts as having no basis in fact. The individuals then filed the damage lawsuit against the city.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel had concluded in dismissing the civil rights claim that a "permit" granted by the city to the homosexuals allowed police to silence the Christian activists' message on public streets.

"It is without question that Judge Stengel's decision has set a precedent to eliminate the First Amendment rights of others by citing that a 'permitting scheme' can be used by police and event organizers to 'exclude persons expressing contrary messages' in public areas and at public events," Marcavage said earlier.

Marcavage told WND today the issues of speech rights should have been left to a jury.

"It's very interesting the court affirmed our rights to be at Outfest, but it should have been left to a jury to decide whether or not our presence was disruptive," he said.

He said the appellate opinion cited as fact those issues that a jury should have been allowed to determine, since the 11 were charged with both felonies and misdemeanors in the original criminal case – but not being a disruption, which was cited in the ruling.

According to Repent America, the Christians on that day "were confronted by a militant mob of homosexuals known as the 'Pink Angels' who blew loud whistles and carried large pink signs in front of them to block their message and access to the event, while others screamed obscenities."

"The Philadelphia police, under the direction of Chief Inspector James Tiano, the city's 'police liaison to the gay and lesbian community,' refused to take any action as the Christians were continuously followed, obstructed, and harassed, even though they respectfully cooperated with police, obeying orders to move, short of being directed out of the event."

The Philadelphia 11 spent 21 hours in jail and faced criminal counts that could have resulted in prison terms of 47 years and $90,000 fines before those counts simply were dropped.

The civil rights complaint then followed.

"While, in its decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit did ultimately side with the city of Philadelphia, it did make some important rulings which should serve to support the rights of Christians to speak in the public square. In its decision, the appeals court rejected U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence F. Stengel's decision from earlier this year in which he ruled that the Philadelphia 11 should have been prohibited from engaging in their constitutional rights on the public streets and sidewalks because 'once the City issued a permit to Philly Pride for OutFest, it was empowered to enforce the permit by excluding persons expressing contrary messages,'" Repent America said.

Repent America said the appeals court found that despite the fact that the event organizers had a permit, the Philadelphia 11 had a constitutionally protected right to be present on the public streets and sidewalks within the event area and convey their message.

The court's justification for supporting police actions against the Christians was based on "the court's perception that the Philadelphia 11 were 'disrupting the event,'" the organization said. "The court came to this conclusion even though the Christians were not charged, arrested or even threatened with arrest for being 'disruptive.'"

Hoppe said that result is "concerning."

"We believe that a review of the video footage of the event clearly shows that the Philly 11 went out of their way to be cooperative and not be disruptive themselves. The only disruption that occurred, if any, was due to the crowd's reaction to the message that the Philly 11 was conveying," Hoppe said.

"It is encouraging that the court affirmed the rights of Christians to go into the public square and engage in free speech activities. However, it does seem somewhat contradictory to say that, on the one had the Philly 11 had a constitutionally protected right to be present at the event and to speak, but then to also say that if the crowd does not like their message, the Philly 11 can be removed."

Academia to high schools: No God allowed
State rejects Christian education as valid for university admissions

Arguments were heard today in a federal district court case to determine whether a state university system can dictate that private Christian schools in the state teach their college prep courses from exclusively secular, Bible- and God-free textbooks.

As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives.

Robert Tyler, who is representing Calvary Chapel Christian School and five students in the case against the University of California, told WND that the university's discriminatory policy creates an ultimatum for Christian schools. "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," he said.

"Christian schools will have to decide: teach from a Christian worldview and eliminate your student's ability to attend a UC school, or teach from a secular worldview, so that the kids can enter the UC school system," he explained.

"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."

Tyler also told WND that though a decision from Federal District Court Judge Otero is expected in the next two to three weeks, he fully expects the case to be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court, since both sides are firmly entrenched and likely to appeal if Otero decides against them.

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

"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.

"We won't accept that, and we're resolved to take this to higher court if necessary."

Under the admissions guidelines to University of California colleges, in-state students must either score in the top two to three percent on standardized tests or complete a core curriculum of approved preparatory classes (called "a-g" classes) to be deemed eligible for entrance into the state university system.

According to the lawsuit, more than 90 percent of UC students achieved eligibility by completing an approved a-g curriculum.

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

After reviewing textbooks from major Christian publishers Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book, UC officials deemed them insufficient, specifically because the books supplemented the basic material with a Christian perspective.

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.

"In other words, (UC schools) routinely approve courses which add viewpoints such as non-Christian religion, feminism, an ethnic preference, a political viewpoint, or multiculturalism, or that focus on religions such as Buddhism or Judaism, (and plaintiffs believe they should evenhandedly approve such courses), but disapprove courses which add viewpoints based on conservative Christianity," the court filings said.

The official court documents also charge, "Methodically and ominously, (UC schools) have assumed increasingly more authority over secondary schools in California by expanding the reach and impact of requirements for students in nonpublic secondary schools to be eligible for admission to the University of California (and effectively also to the California State University system). Even without authority for and guidance in doing so, (UC schools) press onward from deciding admission guidelines to determining what viewpoints may and may not be taught in secondary school classrooms, which books may and may not be used, and what students with the same tests scores are and are not eligible for admission to the University of California."

The ACSI, with the help of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts, contends the university system's discrimination is unconstitutional on several grounds, including an unlawful intrusion and entanglement of the government in the church.

The court documents state, "Entanglement with religion results from (UC schools) and the state parsing through the viewpoints and content of Christian school instruction and texts to ferret out disapproved religious views, and intruding into the content of religious schools and texts, and doing that when there is no deficiency at all reflected in their scores or grades."

"Every teacher teaches from a point of view," Tyler told WND. "We all have a worldview, and if you teach from secular perspective, it's a viewpoint.

"Our argument is that the government has to be neutral when it comes to viewpoint."

'Suspicious' circumstances surround prof's firing

A professor fired from San Jose City College (California) for answering a student's in-class question about heredity and homosexual behavior has filed a federal lawsuit against the school.

June Sheldon was teaching her human heredity class on June 21, 2007, when a student asked how heredity influences homosexual behavior. Sheldon referred the student to the textbook, which explains that some scientists claim homosexuality is a genetic trait, while others claim it is influenced by environmental factors. When another student complained, the school launched an investigation and then fired Sheldon. David Hacker, litigation counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), is representing Sheldon in her suit against the school.

"She simply presented the students with the ability to make their own decision as to what they thought the best science was on the topic of human heredity," Hacker contends.

The ADF attorney says Sheldon was not pushing her religious beliefs off on students as science. She simply informed them that – contrary to claims made in the mainstream media – there is no scientific consensus on what causes homosexuality. "That's what our colleges are intended to do is to teach students, you know, how to think for themselves and engage in critical thinking," Hacker adds. "So, Ms. Sheldon should have been applauded, not terminated."

It is also ironic, Hacker notes, that the student who complained about Sheldon relaying the information from the textbook to her students had dropped the class the morning before the allegedly offensive discussion took place. He would only say that the circumstances do look "very suspicious" when asked if the complaint was possibly a set-up.

"Essentially, they're not protecting the free speech and academic freedom rights of their professors," Hacker laments.

Ban on aid for Christian college students tossed
'1st Amendment does not permit government to judge theology classes'

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.

"The … 'specter of government censorship' is present in this case, except that it has actually materialized. [State] officials testified that they demanded to see CCU's religious education curriculum, and (for reasons known only to themselves) determined it 'tend[ed] to indoctrinate or proselytize," the opinion authored by Judge Michael McConnell said.

The appeals court decision rejected the conclusion from last year by Judge Marcia Krieger, who said it was fine for the state, through its Commission on Higher Education, to evaluate religious and educational materials and then make determinations about whether they educate or indoctrinate.

State officials had argued in support of the discrimination, saying the ban was aimed at preventing taxpayers from paying for educational programs they may disagree with.

Nonsense, concluded the 10th Circuit.

First, the money goes to students, not the institution, the court said.

Further, "The line drawn by the Colorado statute between 'indoctrination' and mere education is highly subjective and susceptible to abuse. Educators impart information and perspectives to students because they regard them as true or valuable. Whether an outsider will deem their efforts to be 'indoctrination' or mere 'education' depends as much on the observer's point of view as on any objective evaluation," the court said.

"Anyone familiar with the varied reactions to the New York Times and Fox News knows how often assessments of objectivity and bias depend on the eye of the beholder. Many courses in secular universities are regarded by their critics as excessively indoctrinating and are as vehemently defended by those who think the content is beneficial.

"But when the beholder is the state, what is beheld is the exercise of religion, and what is at stake is the right of students to receive the equal benefits of public support for higher education, the Constitution interposes its protection. The First Amendment does not permit government officials to sit as judges of the 'indoctrination' quotient of theology classes," the opinion said.

Colorado Christian president William Armstrong, a former U.S. senator, said he's grateful for the outcome.

"We think that it's a great victory for our students but also for the First and 14th amendments," he told the Denver Post.

Students, he said, should not have to make a choice between their religion and getting government benefits.

The state had been issuing grants to students at Regis University, a Catholic school in Denver, as well as the University of Denver, a Methodist institution.

The exclusion of Colorado Christian University students from the state program "solely on the basis of the school's affirmation of Christian faith constitutes blatantly unconstitutional religious discrimination," said a brief filed by the Alabama-based Foundation for Moral Law.

CCU is fully accredited to offer a wide range of undergraduate and graduate degrees in education, business, music, the sciences, counseling and other majors.

CCU filed the lawsuit over the state's actions in 2004 as a result of legislation establishing a series of state-funded college tuition grants for Colorado students.

'Bible' lawsuit may be sign of things to come

Pro-family advocates say Christians should get used to legal harassment such as the lawsuit a homosexual activist recently filed against two Bible publishers.

Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Michigan, does not like the fact that the Bibles produced by Zondervan and Thomas Nelson Publishers both accurately convey God's prohibition against homosexual behavior. So he is suing in federal court, seeking $10 million from Thomas Nelson and $60 million from Zondervan.

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says Bible-believing Christians had better get ready for more of this type of sniping. "Obviously, this is a frivolous publicity stunt, but this is a portent of things to come," he warns.

"We know that the homosexual activists are now targeting, essentially, born-again Christians and committed Catholics and Mormons who oppose their agenda. They're out to re-write the Bible, to say that the Bible really does not condemn homosexual practice, which it obviously does," says LaBarbera. "Ultimately, we believe they'll be doing more and more of these lawsuits against Christians and Christian companies."

LaBarbera says the suit reminds him of British actor and homosexual activist Sir Ian McKellen, who has admitted to ripping pages that contain scriptures condemning homosexuality out of Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms. "The fact is whether you rip the pages out or not, or whether you sue, or whether you pass a law against it, the Word of God still stands," he emphasizes. "And God's authority on that issue still stands, no matter what man does."

AMEN!

The judge in the case has denied Fowler's request for a court-appointed attorney, saying the court had "very genuine concerns" about the legitimacy of the claims in the lawsuit.

Supremes strike 'hate crime' statute
'Preaching about sin of sodomy should not be made illegal'

The Supreme Court in Pennsylvania has declared the "hate crimes" laws used to jail the Philadelphia 11 in 2004 violated the state constitution.

In a four-line statement this week, the court said the ruling from the lower Commonwealth Court "is affirmed for the reasons ably set forth in the opinion of the Honorable James Gardner Collins, which opinion is adopted as that of the Supreme Court."

"We are very happy that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in our favor to stop the governor and a group of corrupt politicians from sneaking a 'hate crimes' bill through the Pennsylvania legislature," said Judge Roy Moore, of the Foundation for Moral Law.

"Preaching to homosexuals about the sin of sodomy should not be made a 'thought crime' in Pennsylvania or any other state," he said.

Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America and a petitioner in the case, said, "Having been arrested, jailed and charged with a 'hate crime' for preaching the Gospel, I am elated that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling in striking down Pennsylvania's expanded 'hate crimes' law."

He said the methods used in the legislature to implement the law were "extremely devious."

Marcavage called it "yet another chilling example as to how far politicians are willing to go to silence Christian speech that they would violate our own state constitution to do it."

"In a nation that is becoming increasingly hostile toward biblical Christianity, we remain vigilant as the Pennsylvania legislature will most likely attempt to pass another 'hate crimes' bill and are continuing to educate the American people on the significant dangers of such laws," he said.

The group of Christians, who were given the title Philadelphia 11, had been giving their testimony on public property at the city's tax-funded celebration of homosexuality in the city's downtown in 2004.

But based on a 2002 "hate crimes" plan then in force in the state, they were arrested, jailed and threatened with up to five decades in jail.

The criminal charges later were dismissed and the group members then challenged the law itself, suing over its adoption. The Supreme Court's ruling affirms the 4-1 decision in the Commonwealth Court that the amendments were unconstitutional.

The petitioners said the passage of the bill, which originally criminalized agricultural crop destruction but was altered to become the first proposal in Pennsylvania to recognize "sexual orientation" as a protected class, failed to follow Article III of the state constitution. That provision prohibits the complete overhaul of a bill in the course of its passage.

The provisions adopted under the failed procedure increased penalties for crimes based on what the criminal was thinking, specifying the additional penalties for "actual or perceived … ancestry, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity."

"The legislative process that led to the enactment of these amendments clearly violated Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution," Aaron Martin, attorney for Repent America, said after the earlier court decision. "The court rightly found that there was no logical or legal connection between trampling down a hay field and assaulting someone on the basis of sexual orientation."

The Commonwealth Court opinion written by Collins was joined by Judges Doris Smith-Ribner, Dan Pellegrini and Robert Simpson. Judge Bonnie Ledbetter dissented. With the new order, it has been adopted as the Supreme Court's opinion, too

The bill had been signed into law by ex-Gov. Mark Schweiker.

Repent America said the case was pursued because members plan to share their testimonies at future public events, and they were concerned charges would be brought – again.

In this case, the courts said: "We agree with petitioners that [the law] did not retain its original purpose as it moved through the enactment process. … The original version and final version of HB 1493 regulate vastly different activities."

The Philadelphia 11 also filed a civil rights lawsuit over the events of that day, and that case most recently was turned back by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Praying Using Jesus' Name Unconstitutional
By Sarah Miracle
CBNNews.com
July 26, 2008

CBNNews.com - Using Jesus' name during public prayers is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The 2006 case involved a city councilman in Fredericksburg, Va., who had frequently used the name of Jesus during prayer to open meetings.

Click play to hear more on this case from John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

No Jesus in Prayer?

The three-judge panel for the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Wednesday that "the practice of members of Town Council invoking name(s) specifically associated with the Christian faith violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

In response, the Fredericksburg city councilman involved in the case, Hashmel Turner, says his prayers are not going to change.

"As far as me altering my prayer, it's not going to happen," the Rev. Turner, a Baptist minister, told Fredericksburg's Free Lance-Star. But one of Turner's attorneys said he wouldn't break the law either.

"He would not violate what the government of Fredericksburg, Va., has said -- and what they've said is 'you can pray, as long as you don't refer to Jesus, or a specific god,' John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, told CBN News.

"So Rev. Turner said he's just not going to pray under this decision. He would be in violation of the law. He's not going to do that. He's going to wait and see if the Supreme Court will hear this case and reverse this decision," Whitehead said.

Government Writing Prayer

Turner sued the city in 2006 after the council passed a policy requiring invocations to be nondenominational. His attorneys with the institute - an organization that takes up cases of religious freedom - argued that the government was "writing prayer" if it told Turner how to pray.

Turner lost in trial court, and the federal appeals court upheld that verdict.

"This ruling shows exactly how dangerous the government speech doctrine is: it extinguishes free speech," Whitehead said.

"If the government can censor speech on the grounds that it is so-called 'government speech,' it will not be long before this label becomes a convenient tool for silencing any message that does not conform to what government officials deem appropriate," he added.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia faxed a response to Turner and other city council members.

"An invocation at the beginning of a city council meeting is an official act of the Fredericksburg government," ACLU Executive Director Kent Willis wrote.

"It must, as the Fourth Circuit has now mandated, be free of religious references in order to avoid sending the message to citizens that Fredericksburg prefers one religion over all others," he said.

Appealing to the Supreme Court

Turner plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, his attorneys say.

"In this particular case, I think there are at least four judges on the Supreme Court who will want to hear this case, so it may be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court," Whitehead said. "There's chance we could win this case in the Supreme Court, because there are a number of judges across the country that have said this whole idea of the separation of church and state and how religious people are treated in public places has gone too far," he added.

People for the American Way, one of the groups representing the city of Fredericksburg, responded to Turner's plans for appeal.

"The appellate court's decision, written by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, was unanimous," said Judith E. Schaeffer, Legal Director, People For the American Way Foundation. "It is unfortunate that Rev. Turner - who is seeking special rights to which no elected official is entitled - apparently intends to continue to take up the time and attention of his own City Council in further pursuit of this misguided lawsuit."

Turner has been a member of the Fredericksburg City Council since 2002. Council members are regularly called upon to open meetings in prayer. On several occasions, Turner ended his prayers "in the name of Jesus Christ."

"If council decides my way of praying is not in line with the rules it intends to follow, then I'll stop," Turner told the Free Lance-Star. "But I'm not going to allow the dictations of others to determine how I pray. I pray based on my beliefs."

Quote from: Pastor Roger on July 26, 2008, 10:28:35 PM

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.

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."

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?"

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.

'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."

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."

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Virginia governor endorses ban on 'Jesus' prayer
Dispute arose when chaplains ordered to accommodate everyone in audience

Gov. Timothy Kaine of Virginia has affirmed his support for a new statewide policy under which state troopers serving as chaplains will not be allowed to pray "in Jesus name," explaining that he can pray "without mentioning Jesus."

"I would never do anything to inhibit anybody's religious worship. It doesn't diminish my ability to worship my God, to pray to the Father or the Lord without mentioning Jesus Christ," he said.

As a result, a coalition of pastors from a wide range of Christian groups and church denominations across the state is planning a rally Nov. 1, just three days before the fall elections, to protest the move that resulted in the resignations of six of the state's 17 trooper chaplains.

The "Stand Up For Jesus" rally is set for Nov. 1 at 10 a.m. at the Capitol Square Bell Tower in Richmond, "within earshot of the governor's mansion," according to former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who fought a battle with the U.S. military over the issue and lost his career as a result. He later won a victory in Congress allowing other chaplains to pray as their conscience dictates.

WND reported earlier when the pastors wrote to Kaine seeking a change in the policy that suddenly was announced by Col. W. Steven Flaherty to chaplains. The dispute became public through the work of Charles W. Carrico Sr., a member of Virginia's House of Delegates, a former trooper.

In a GodTube video, Kaine indicates there should be no problem for Christian chaplains, because he can pray without any mention of Jesus' name.

In his written response to the pastors, Kaine said, "It is important for state employees to be sensitive to the entire population who would attend such events."

"Most of the members of the chaplaincy program understand this guidance from the leadership and accept it. I am very sorry that some members feel that this rule about the public ceremonies is unacceptable," he continued.

The governor also chided the pastors for mentioning the words "liberals," "atheists" and "homosexuals."

"I did note that the attachments to your letter contained some extraneous references to energizing voters before November 4 and disparaging comments about 'liberals,' 'atheists' and 'homosexuals.' I take matters of faith and religious liberty very seriously and am offended when people attempt to inflame passions about these sacred matters for political ends," he wrote.

Klingenschmitt said information he sent to pastors noted that several "'churches' with offensive names" had signed onto the effort seeking the reinstatement of the chaplains. "Unfortunately, a group of atheists and homosexuals are signing the pledge to combat our efforts and confuse pastors," he advised.

Besides misunderstanding that information, Klingenschmitt said the governor also made a number of misstatements in his letter, including his claim that, "No one lost their jobs."

"Six chaplains lost their jobs as chaplains, having effectively 'turned in their chaplain badge' in protest over the governor's 'non-sectarian' prayer policy," Klingenschmitt said. "They are no longer permitted to perform chaplain duties, until they comply with the prayer policy and get reinstated."

Klingenschmitt said the chaplains "were given direct verbal orders to stop praying 'in Jesus name' … [and] faced with a choice between disobeying orders and violating their conscience by publicly denying the name of Jesus Christ, they resigned."

That's exactly what persecution is, he continued.

The governor's response was "degrading and insulting to me, to the chaplains, to the 86 pastors, and to our faith," Klingenschmitt said.

"In response, I am organization a statewide prayer rally, entitled 'Virginia, Stand Up For Jesus' on November 1st at Capitol square Bell Tower," he said. "We the people of Virginia will assemble to pray in Jesus name, even in public, the very act of prayer these chaplains are forbidden to do by Governor Kaine."

"The bottom line is these chaplains were given a choice between disobeying orders and violating their conscience, so they resigned as heroes who stood up for Jesus," he said.

Klingenschmitt, whose battle with the military over his use of the phrase remains in court where he's seeking reinstatement, said he "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.'"

State officials said they were worried about future lawsuits because of an appeals court opinion written by 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.

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, censoring Turner and 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."

Klingenschmitt noted, "Ironically, she admitted Turner was excluded from participating solely because of the Christian content of his prayer. The Fredericksburg government violated everybody's rights by establishing a nonsectarian religion, and requiring all prayers conform, or face punishment of exclusion."

'Bride,' 'groom' can't marry in California
'We thought we couldn't go any lower. We discovered actually we can'

A man and woman are having to go to court in California because they want to be recognized as married after officials there rejected their marriage license because it listed "bride" and "groom" instead of "Party A" and "Party B."

After the state Supreme Court in May expanded the rights enumerated in the state constitution and found same-sex couples couldn't be denied marriage rights, "Many thought we couldn't go any lower," said Brad Dacus, of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working on the case. "We discovered actually we can."

Gideon Codding and Rachel Bird recently were married in Placer County, near Sacramento. However, surprised by new forms that were created by state bureaucrats to allow for "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses, they "jotted an explanatory 'Groom' and 'Bride' next to the party names."

They soon found out how strong is the pro-homosexual lobby in the state: The form was returned to Pastor Doug Bird, who officiated, with a form letter stating the license "does not comply with California State registration laws."

That's even though the officials forms for years have designated parties to a marriage "Bride" and "Groom."

They now are filing a lawsuit in Placer County asking the court to order county officials to process the license, since without the form's registration, "the Coddings are not legally married and have been prevented from accessing the many benefits available to married couples."

"Being labeled by the state as 'Party A' and 'Party B" is demeaning," said PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider. "It's shocking that we have to litigate over whether newlyweds can call themselves a bride and groom."

"Already, we are seeing the negative effects of gay marriage in California, as the state is changing centuries-old traditions to accommodate homosexuals. Unless the Protect Marriage Initiative, Proposition 8, is approved in November, we expect a tidal wave of new restraints and limitations to be imposed on people of faith," said Dacus.

He told WND the right for a one-man, one-woman couple to be married "was in no way invalidated by the state Supreme Court's ruling respecting homosexual marriage."

"This is an outright act of hostility towards the established rights of people to be married as husband and wife, bride and groom," he said.

"It's one thing for the state Sukpreme Court to cram homosexual marriage down the throats of people who voted for Proposition 22, it's quite another for the state of California then to go so far as to make it impossible for a man and woman to be married as husband and wife in the state of California," he said.

Pastor Bird, of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, said he was told by officials in the county office that "Bride" and "Groom" amounted to "unacceptable alteration" to the form.

"What's next?" Bird wrote in a Sept. 4 letter. "Will the State of California force [ministers] to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?"

The state Supreme Court in May, in a 4-3 decision, declared that legal definitions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. Since the ruling, the generic designations were added by bureaucrats to legal documents.

Voters several years ago under Proposition 22 approved limiting marriage to one man and one woman, but that was by statute, which the Supreme Court simple disregarded. The Proposition 8 proposal would establish that definition in the state constitution, putting it beyond the reach of judicial activism.

Top insurer forces employees to study Buddhist teachings
Managers' retreat requires chanting 'om' in dark room

A former Prudential Insurance manager is preparing legal action against the company, claiming she was fired after blowing the whistle on mandatory Eastern religious exercises that included chanting the Hindu mantra "om" in darkened rooms.

Prudential Insurance Co.'s southern California real estate division also required managers to read a Buddhist book, charges the Christian ex-employee, whose name has been withheld pending formal action.

The former manager's lawyer, Richard Ackerman of Ackerman Cowles & Associates, has written a letter to Prudential demanding the company stop requiring participation in the religous practices and warning he has been retained to pursue claims of religious discrimination, "hostile environment" and harassment against his client that led to her termination.

Ackerman told Prudential California Realty, a Berkgotcha2e Hathaway affiliate, it must stop the "discriminatory practice of segregating Christians from other employees and forcing employees to adopt and practice Buddhist theology as an implied or express condition of their ... employment."

Ackerman told WND his client was instructed to go to a managers' seminar and was given a book, "Buddha: 9 to 5," to study beforehand.

The book, boasting it was "based on the Buddhist practice of the Eightfold Path," provides "a hands-on set of tools to reawaken yourself, your employees, and your organization."

"Using the Buddhist concepts of Intention, Mindfulness, and Right Action, you'll be able to reap prosperity not just in profits but in stronger connections with your employees and your customers," the book instructs.

It was written by Nancy Spears, who was described in the book as "a former marketing executive who embraced spiritual practice as a means of survival in the corporate workplace," who now is on the board for the Shambhala Mountain Center in Aspen, Colo., where she lives.

Officials with Prudential California Realty did not return a WND message requesting a comment.

Ackerman told WND his client was in the management ranks for the organization and was required to attend a management conference that focused on the Buddhist book. He said managers also were required to be in 13-minute sessions in darkened rooms where everyone was instructed to sit in the lotus position with hands held overhead while the "om" chant was performed.

The "om" chant actually is more often associated with Hinduism, and an online information resource for the religion states, "The goal which all the Vedas declare, which all austerities aim at, and which men desire when they lead the life of continence ... is om. ... Whosoever knows this syllable obtains all that he desires. ... Whosoever knows this support is adored in the world of Brahma."

At the seminar, after the lights were turned back on, those who "felt uncomfortable" with the stunt were required to stand and explain. The participation in the mysticism conflicted with the religous and moral principles of the law firm's client, the wife of a local evangelical Christian pastor, Ackerman said.

"Basically what they did was made her life miserable [following her objections]," Ackerman said.

Ackerman's letter to the real estate company cited its "2007 Fall Leadership Conference - 'Rise Above' Lake Arrowhead" event.

"The event was, by all accounts, a required part of employment," Ackerman's letter said. "Part of the event included an unexpected and rather shocking indoctrination into Buddhist theology and actual meditation/prayer practices.

"Both the speakers and the content of the conference required employee acceptance of anti-Christian theology, practices and beliefs," Ackerman wrote. "While our office can conceptually understand the perceived need for acceptance, equality, and diversity, it is certainly unusual to require employees to engage in actual prayer/meditation exercises. Had employees been required to participate in Bible study, management-led compulsory prayer to the Holy Trinity, or other similar Christian practices, one can rest assured that complaints would be aplenty."

He said the pastor's wife and other workers who objected to the mandatory religious activity were "made to feel as though they were just not getting along with the intended program."

"Aside from the prayer activity, the program participants were also bombarded with 'Neuro-Linguistic Programming' ideology," Ackerman wrote. He explained to WND the ideology is a basic part of "New Age" religion.

"The uncomfortable employees were disregarded and treated as outsiders as a result of their discomfort with the infusion of religion and new age 'spirituality' into the workplace," he continued. "While it should have been apparent to anyone at the conference that mandating religious activity in a workplace is discriminatory, hostile, and inappropriate under California and federal law, the process went on anyway. In fact, the conduct toward my client was so shocking that she was caused to literally choke at the event and had to be rescued by a coworker," Ackerman said.

"Following the conference, Prudential CEO Steve Rogers continued to cause management meetings to be opened with the Buddhist prayer rituals," the letter said.

The manager's ultimate termination was "on a false pretense" last month, the letter said.

Colorado's Bible ban faces court challenge
Dems combine to banish 'anti-gay discrimination'

Tim Gill, the secretive Colorado software multi-millionaire and behind-the-scenes "gay" activist who has boasted of his strategy to buy up campaigns for pro-homosexual candidates, soon may be learning he cannot buy the First Amendment.

Gill, whose strategic campaign donations in 2004 largely are credited with turning the GOP majority in the Colorado statehouse into a Democratic bastion and whose work in 2006 helped install Democrat Bill Ritter, a vigorously pro-abortion campaigner, in the governor's office, has been blamed by Christian organizations for the success of a new Colorado law that bans the Bible in the state.

But the Christian Family Alliance of Colorado and Liberty Counsel are teaming up on a soon-to-be-filed lawsuit expected to highlight the apparent First Amendment violations of SB200, the state law that bans references to homosexuals that could be perceived as "discriminatory" and raises the issue of whether the law applies to the Bible's label of homosexuality as an "abomination."

The protection for homosexuals is wrapped up in a "gender" discrimination ban that widely was publicized as the "bathroom bill," because it also allows adults who say they are a particular sex to use public restrooms designated for that sex, whether their physical characteristics match that sex or not. Such laws also have been adopted locally in Florida and Maryland, too.

But within the bill are the much more drastic provisions addressing the Bible.

"Section 8 of the bill makes it a crime to publish or distribute anything that is deemed a 'discrimination' against the homosexual and transsexual lifestyle," said a statement from the Christian Family Alliance.

Mark Hotaling, executive director for the Alliance, said the work of Gill and his homosexual lobby has been evident since Democrats took the majority position in the state legislature in 2004.

"But this is just so over the top," he said of the latest attack on biblical values.

He said initially supporters and even some opponents of the bill explained that there was an exception for churches and church organizations. However, lawmakers then attached to the bill a state "safety clause" which is supposed to deal with laws that are fundamental to protecting the lives of residents.

That, he said, simply stripped away any potential allowances for churches and church groups.

"Anyone who claims that there's an exception for churches really doesn't know the ins and outs of the bill," Hotaling told WND.

"So the religious exemption is purely window dressing and very deceptive," he said. "The Word of God literally now is banned, and that's a legitimate slam-dunk First Amendment issue there."

Also a horror is the provision for adults to be provided access to restrooms of their choice, he said.

The law "gives increased access for predators and cross-dressers to go into any bathroom they choose," he said. "The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children says predators prey on children where they have their greatest access."

What could better suit predators' purposes than the closed doors of public restrooms, he suggested.

He said his organization is working with Liberty Counsel to document the impact of the law, its provisions and what constitutional authority may be usurped by the state law.

"We're going to fight this thing," he said. "We're very confident that at least some aspects of SB200 will be thrown out, and perhaps the entire bill."

There have been no reports of prosecutions under the law yet.

"But it will happen," Hotaling said, "The danger is this legislation is not necessarily an individual complaint, but how it is weaved into the fabric of society. I heard … there are school districts in the state where elementary schools are trying to figure out how to implement unisex bathrooms."

The most important issue, he believes, is that churches keep preaching the Bible.

"If we're yelling anything from the rooftops, it's that pastors and churches should not stop preaching the Word of God and not to temper the Word out of fear," he said.

Mathew Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, said he's had staff members researching the law, checking other states for similar provisions and doing other preparation for a lawsuit.

"Colorado is by far the most restrictive," he said.

Gill, in a report carried by the Christian Broadcasting Network, boasted recently about his strategy to infuse specific campaigns with the money they need to "eliminate the anti-gay state legislators."

"The Republican Party is controlled by a bunch of bigots, and the only way the bigots are going to learn is if we take their power away from them," he said in the CBN report.

He also urged donors to be selective in their targeted campaigns.

"Just a little bit of money goes a long way. I'll tell you that $500 or $1000 in Wyoming goes a lot farther than $500 or $1000 in L.A., where it probably doesn't even buy a bottle of wine," he said.

Last spring, shortly after Ritter signed SB200 into law, state Rep. Kevin Lundberg told WND it was written with intentional vagueness.

"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," he said. His comments came in conjunction with a news conference at which a number of groups announced their intention to challenge the law.

Lundberg cited Section 8, which is titled, "Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden."

Others represented at the news conference were WND columnist and national syndicated talk show host Janet Folger, author of "The Criminalization of Christianity;" Steve Curtis, president of the American Right To Life Action and former chairman of the Colorado GOP; Kevin Swanson of Christian Home Educators of Colorado; Hotaling and Colorado for Family Values.

WND reported that one of the supporters of the bill, Cathryn Hazouri of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the state House Judiciary Committee: "One may practice one's religion in private; however, once a religious person comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of their religion impacts others."

The Christian publishing house Focus on the Family has called the law a payback by the Democrat-controlled legislature and Ritter to homosexual activists such as Gill.

Quote from: Pastor Roger on October 10, 2008, 10:09:01 AM

I'm glad to hear that their are still those that are fighting against this atrocity. Unfortunately those that are doing this are getting away with it in all of the states to one degree or another. The majority of this nation has turned it's eyes and hearts away from God just as is the case for the majority of the entire world. There will be a lot of rough times ahead for us all because of this. There will be one final solution ... Lord come!

Brother Roger, my younger brother was very upset about this when I brought the subject up. We really didn't have the time during our short visit for him to get everything off his chest. I didn't mention the high probability that Christians are likely to lose many battles before CHRIST RAPTURES us. I give thanks that my brothers are both strong Christians, and they know WHO will have to fight and WIN the final battles that END THE WAR! You and I both know that JESUS CHRIST is the ONLY ONE who has the power to WIN THIS WAR. The Holy Bible tells us when CHRIST will fight this war, and we should believe it. ONLY JESUS CHRIST can rule over the world and establish a real and lasting peace. Many exceptionally beautiful portions of Scripture describe the peace that JESUS CHRIST will establish. Men aren't capable of the peace that CHRIST will establish. Mankind has suffered from EVIL, violence, and war since Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for disobeying GOD.

As Christians, we must just continue to stand up for right and against wrong without regard for who wins that particular battle. Uppermost in our minds and hearts, we should know that ONLY JESUS CHRIST can and will establish peace and put away evil.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 2:1-5 NASB The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. 3 And many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths." For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war. 5 Come, house of Jacob, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.

'Millions' warned about 'gay' indoctrination
Father says court case against schools reached his goal

The Massachusetts father who spent a night in jail amid an attempt to stop instruction to his children that violated his Christian beliefs says his court case ultimately accomplished its goal.

David Parker says he was successful even though the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up the case. The high court's decision left standing an appeals court ruling essentially concluding parents who object to such indoctrination should either change their school board or start homeschooling.

"It is the end of the line in the federal system," Parker told WND in an interview. "But this case is now being used in Arizona, in Florida, in California [in support of traditional marriage.]"

Those are three of the states where voters will decide next month on proposals to define marriage as being between one man and one woman only. In 27 of 28 states where the issue has been on the ballot, voters have endorsed the one-man, one-woman definition.

"The objective of this lawsuit has been met. We asked for parental notification, and God has put us in a position to notify tens of millions of people," Parker told WND.

"If I had to do it all over again, I would, even knowing this would be the outcome," he said.

WND reported earlier this week when the Supreme Court refused to intervene. That left the dispute arising from the indoctrination program at Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, Mass., virtually over for Parker and his family.

Parker and his wife have withdrawn their children from the public school because of the case and the resulting harassment it has generated for them. They had objected to the school's advocacy to children as young as kindergarten on behalf of homosexual advocates.

Not only did school officials set up and pursue the program, they specifically refused to tell Christian parent when the teaching would take place.

The decision by the Supreme Court leaves standing the ruling from the appeals court for Massachusetts, where Judge Sandra Lynch said anyone concerned about such civil rights violations "may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state."

Previously, District Judge Mark Wolf ordered that teaching about homosexuality 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.

According to a new report from MassResistance, a pro-family organization following the case, the dispute was over the Lexington Schools' "aggressive policy of normalizing homosexual behavior to elementary school children and not allowing parents to be notified before or after, or being able to opt-out their kids from it."

The dispute grabbed headlines when Parker, on April 27, 2005, was arrested and thrown in jail by school officials over his insistence on being notified regarding his son in kindergarten being taught about homosexual relationships by adults.

Another family eventually got involved over similar school actions, and Parker told WND the school's practice continued, because he still gets e-mails from parents upset over what they see happening in the public school.

In an earlier interview with WND, Parker warned allowing the appeals ruling to stand would set up teachers "to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach.]"

Punishment for graduation speech taken to appeals court
Principal threatened to withhold diploma for Christian testimony

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver is being asked to affirm free speech rights for a student punished for expressing her religious faith at her graduation.

The dispute involves Erica Corder, a valedictorian at Lewis-Palmer High School near Colorado Springs in 2006. Her complaint, handled by the non-profit group Liberty Counsel, alleges school officials intimidated her and coerced into writing an "apology" after she gave the following testimony about her beliefs:

"We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet was resurrected and is living today in heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If you don't already know him personally I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with him."

Corder said officials withheld her diploma until she issued an apology, and the school "continues to portray her as a student who engaged in improper conduct because she mentioned Jesus Christ during her speech."

In an e-mail to the local newspaper, the Gazette, district spokeswoman Robin Adair said school officials were correct.

"We are confident that all actions taken by school officials were constitutionally appropriate. As a result, we intend to vigorously defend the claims," the e-mail said.

Liberty Counsel contends Corder's First Amendment rights of free speech were violated when school officials "refused to present her with her diploma unless she issued an apology for mentioning Jesus Christ." The group alleges a violation of the 14th Amendment right to equal protection because officials treated religious speech "differently" than nonreligious speech.

Liberty Counsel said before graduation in May 2006, Principal Mark Brewer told the valedictorians they could choose one student to speak, or all 15 could deliver 30-second messages. The students chose to all participate and picked a general topic for each speaker. Corder and one other student were assigned to deliver concluding messages.

The law firm said each valedictorian gave a proposed speech to the principal ahead of the graduation. Then during her 30-second message, Corder added some comments about her faith in Jesus.

The case now has been forwarded to the appeals level.

The brief raises the issue of the demand by the principal that the student include these specific words in her "apology": "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did."

The law firm said she complied out of fear the school would generate negative publicity about her and withhold her diploma. The principal did, in fact, forward her coerced statement to "the entire high school community."

Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, contends the school district had no right to coerce Corder to speak against her will when she was no longer a student.

"The school district compounded its unconstitutional censorship of religious viewpoints by forcing an exemplary alumnus to 'confess' to the school's own crime," he said. "Graduation was over. The lights had been turned off. The people were gone. Erica graduated and yet the school officials falsely claimed this straight-A student could not graduate because she mentioned the name of 'Jesus' in her 30-second speech," Staver said.

"This is unbelievable. Students do not shed their right to free speech when they stand at the graduation podium," he said.

Prudential: Buddha book not about religion
'It was used in the context of business'

A major real estate subsidiary of the giant Prudential Insurance Co. says the book "Buddha: 9 to 5" is a "business" book, and that's why it was used at a managers' training seminar.

"'Buddha: 9 to 5' is a successful book on how to grow a successful business. It was used in the context of business," Sam Kraemer, the general counsel for Prudential California Realty, told WND today.

The issue arose because of a complaint letter, as WND reported, on behalf of a former manager who is preparing legal action against the company alleging she was fired after blowing the whistle on mandatory Eastern religious exercises.

The former manager's lawyer, Richard Ackerman of Ackerman Cowles & Associates, wrote to Prudential demanding the company stop requiring participation in the religious practices and warning he has been retained to pursue claims of religious discrimination, "hostile environment" and harassment against his client that led to her termination.

Ackerman told Prudential California Realty, a Berkshire Hathaway affiliate, it must stop the "discriminatory practice of segregating Christians from other employees and forcing employees to adopt and practice Buddhist theology as an implied or express condition of their ... employment."

Kraemer told WND he could not comment specifically on the case but affirmed that the book was used at the seminar, and it is a "business" book, used for its business information.

However, Amazon.com lists the book under "Religion & Spirituality," as well as "Buddhism" and "Buddha," and describes it as "based on the Buddhist practice of the Eightfold Path."

The author, Nancy Spears, is described as "a former marketing executive who embraced spiritual practice as a means to survival in the corporate workplace." She also serves on the board for the Shambhala Mountain Center in Aspen, Colo.

Google books contains a similar description of the title: "It shows readers how to apply the Buddhist concepts."

Another online source said the book "shows readers how to apply the Buddhist concepts of intention, mindfulness and right action to business."

Kraemer declined to confirm that the employees were required to participate in darkened-room chant sessions, again citing the complaint letter submitted to the company.

Ackerman told WND his client was instructed to go to a managers' seminar and was given the book to study beforehand.

The book, boasting it was "based on the Buddhist practice of the Eightfold Path," provides "a hands-on set of tools to reawaken yourself, your employees, and your organization."

"Using the Buddhist concepts of Intention, Mindfulness, and Right Action, you'll be able to reap prosperity not just in profits but in stronger connections with your employees and your customers," the book instructs.

Ackerman's letter noted the chant sessions in which everyone was instructed to sit in the lotus position with hands held overhead while the "om" chant was performed.

The "om" chant actually is more often associated with Hinduism. An online information resource for the religion states, "The goal which all the Vedas declare, which all austerities aim at, and which men desire when they lead the life of continence ... is om. ... Whosoever knows this syllable obtains all that he desires. ... Whosoever knows this support is adored in the world of Brahma."

At the seminar, after the lights were turned back on, those who "felt uncomfortable" with the activity were required to stand and explain. Ackerman said participation in the mysticism by his client, the wife of a local evangelical pastor, conflicted with her religious and moral principle.

"Basically what they did was made her life miserable [following her objections]," Ackerman said.

Ackerman's letter to the real estate company cited its "2007 Fall Leadership Conference - 'Rise Above' Lake Arrowhead" event.

"The event was, by all accounts, a required part of employment," Ackerman's letter said. "Part of the event included an unexpected and rather shocking indoctrination into Buddhist theology and actual meditation/prayer practices.

"Both the speakers and the content of the conference required employee acceptance of anti-Christian theology, practices and beliefs," Ackerman wrote. "While our office can conceptually understand the perceived need for acceptance, equality, and diversity, it is certainly unusual to require employees to engage in actual prayer/meditation exercises. Had employees been required to participate in Bible study, management-led compulsory prayer to the Holy Trinity, or other similar Christian practices, one can rest assured that complaints would be aplenty."

Pastor becomes IRS target

A group that supports the false philosophy of separation of church and state has filed action against another pastor for having his say about politics.

Bishop Robert E. Smith is senior pastor at Word of Outreach and Christian Academy in Little Rock, Arkansas. Americans United for Separation of Church and State has lodged a complaint against him for endorsing John McCain for president from the pulpit on October 12.

"Bishop Smith knowingly and flagrantly violated the law and has even dared the IRS to investigate him for it," says Americans United leader Barry Lynn in a press release. "I hope the federal tax agency promptly takes him up on that."

But Smith contends the law upon which the complaint was filed with the Internal Revenue Service is unconstitutional.

"Congress cannot make any law that prohibits the free exercise of my faith," the pastor explains. "So a part of my faith as a minister is not only to deal with issues, but to deal with the people who are making the laws that affect the issues -- because I preach a two-sided gospel: the gospel of Christ for salvation, and the gospel of the kingdom for the political stability of its people. So that gets into politics."

The Arkansas pastor remembers a time when pastors could speak freely from the pulpit -- and did. "Well, that's the way it has been," he laments, "but since it's coming out in the form as it is now, a lot of the pastors are getting cold feet and they're backing up."

Smith is one of 33 pastors around the country who have spoken from the pulpit on political candidates and issues as part of Alliance Defense Fund's project to challenge the law and generate a lawsuit to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. Complaints have been filed with the IRS against seven churches so far.

Wow! It's still OK to pray in Jesus' name
Court ruling says judges shouldn't 'parse the content of a particular prayer'

The judges on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have used a case from Cobb County, Ga., to proclaim that praying "in Jesus' name" is acceptable at county board meetings when other constitutional provisions are followed.

The ruling this week sets up a conflict with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded in an opinion written by ex-Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that city officials properly excluded from a rotation of leaders for opening prayers at a municipal meeting a pastor who prayed "in Jesus' name."

"Finally an appeals court with some common sense has ruled what I've been saying all along. The government cannot parse the content of anybody's prayer, nor forbid prayers offered 'in Jesus' name' in legislative bodies, or by government chaplains," said Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt.

He was discharged from the U.S. Navy in a dispute with his commander over praying in uniform "in Jesus' name," although he later won a victory in Congress that now allows other chaplains to pray as their conscience dictates.

His personal case seeking reinstatement remains pending.

"This victory for Jesus prayers deals a serious blow to the ACLU's national campaign to silence all mention of Jesus' name from utterance in the public square. It proves 'Jesus' is not an illegal word, and this court decision proves it's fully constitutional to pray 'in Jesus name' at public events, especially if you're a government-paid chaplain, as long as we all take turns," he said.

"If the anti-Christian lawyers for the ACLU dare to appeal this good ruling to the Supreme Court, this case would stand opposite the bad ruling in Turner v. Fredericksburg [from the 4th Circuit]."

In the new 11th Circuit ruling, the judges took on the objections brought by some taxpayers in Cobb County that their county commission and planning commission opened meetings with prayers assigned among local religious leaders on a rotating basis.

"When legislative prayers do not 'have the effect of affiliating the government with any one specific faith or belief, … it is not for [the court] to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content of a particular prayer," the court ruling said.

"We would not know where to begin to demarcate the boundary between sectarian and nonsectarian expressions and the taxpayers [who brought the case] have been opaque in explaining that standard," the court said. "Even the individual taxpayers cannot agree on which expressions are 'sectarian.'"

The opinion said representatives of Christianity, Islam, Unitarian Universalism and Judaism have been represented.

"The prayers have included references to 'Jesus,' 'Allah,' 'God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,' 'Mohammed,' and 'Heavenly Father,'" the court said.

Those who objected, the court said, "argue that the Estabslihment Clause permits only nonsectarian prayers … but we disagree."

The ruling said precedent makes it clear that "the content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where … there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief."

"Whether invocations of 'Lord of Lords' or 'the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Mohammed' are 'sectarian' is best left to theologians, not courts of law," the court said.

Attorneys with The Rutherford Institute have asked the high court to overturn the opinion issued by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which came in the case of Hashmel Turner, a Christian who was told he alone of all council members in Fredericksburg, Va., would not be allowed to use the name of his God during the routine meeting prayers.

The appeals court had concluded that such prayers actually were "government speech" and, therefore, not protected by the First Amendment. But Rutherford lawyers say the city's attempt to dictate the content of prayers violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as well as Turner's free speech and free exercise rights.

That's trouble, the institute said. In fact, the decision "has already triggered a discriminatory backlash against state-trooper chaplains in Virginia and … threatens to undermine free speech rights around the country."

The O'Connor ruling, said the appeal, "theoretically could permit a city council to prepare the text of an approved prayer and require any council members who wish to pray to read from the approved script."

Such government demands, the appeal said, are "unprecedented in the history of this Court's First Amendment jurisprudence."

In fact, "It violates this Court's outright prohibition on the government prescribing or proscribing the content of any prayer. It gives government unbridled authority to discriminate against religious viewpoints under the 'government speeech' umbrella without any accountability," the institute's appeal said.

Klingenschmitt has set up a Prayer Rally for Persecuted Police Chaplains Saturday, from 10-11 a.m. at the Capitol Square Bell Tower in downtown Richmond in support of the six Virginia State Police chaplains who resigned their chaplain posts rather than agreed to stop praying "in Jesus' name" as ordered by state officials.

Nearly 100 Virginia pastors already have pledged to mobilize their churches in support of the chaplains.

Pastors wrote the Virginia governor seeking a change in the policy that suddenly was announced by Col. W. Steven Flaherty to chaplains. The dispute became public through the work of Charles W. Carrico Sr., a member of Virginia's House of Delegates, a former trooper.

State officials said the policy was imposed because they were worried about future lawsuits because of the O'Connor opinion.

Said the appeal, "Unquestionably, the city council's policy was aimed directly at Councilor Turner and his practice of closing prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Unquestionably, after the policy was adopted, other city council members were permitted to pray in the name of other deities and to utter prayers reflecting denominational influences. … whereas councilor Turner was excluded from praying."

Boy Sent Home From School For Dressing As Jesus
Eighth Grader Told His Halloween Costume Was Offensive, Distracting

A Paramus middle school student was sent home Friday after he came to school dressed up as Jesus for Halloween.

For a few hours, Alex Woinski was the messiah of West Brook Middle School, but like the real Jesus, Woinski was condemned, so to speak.

"Sort of like a new remake of what supposedly happened," Woinski told CBS 2.

Decked out in sandals, a robe, fake beard and thorns, the 13-year-old joined 500 other students at his school's Halloween celebration, and on this day, he was the chosen one - to go home.

"It was offensive to some students," Woinski said, when asked what school officials told him the reason for being sent home was.

Woinski says he wore the costume because friends say his long hair makes him a Jesus lookalike, and were not offended by his costume.

The school says thes costume was a disruption and denies its religious nature had anything to do with it.

"I don't think I overreacted," Principal Joan Broe told CBS 2.

Broe said too many students were drawn to the costume, and that was reason enough.

"Children were [asking], where is the boy who is Jesus Christ?" she said. "It was disrupting the education process."

Woinski's parents agree it was political correctness gone amok.

"I think the whole freedom of speech and expression has definitely had a damper put on it, and this is proof of that," says Kim Woinski, Alex's mother.

But it won't put a damper on Woinski's trick or treating. This Jesus has been resurrected for Friday night.

Woinski has developed an interest in religion. His mother is Catholic and his father is Jewish. He recently celebrated his Bar Mitzvah and his also studying Bible scripture.

His school says this was the first time anyone had ever dressed up like Jesus. They say other students were ordered to alter their costumes because they were deemed inappropriate.

ACLU bullies small-town festival for including Christians
Issue is whether government should 'endorse' religious expression

The Louisiana American Civil Liberties Union fired off a letter to the mayor of Thibodaux, La., warning that the small town's promotion of a city festival featuring Christian bands may be a violation of the First Amendment.

The Thibodeauxville Festival, which draws nearly 12,000 people to the town whose population barely exceeds 14,000, has featured fun, food, street dancing and bands from a variety of genres for the past 16 years.

But when the ACLU spied the city's seal on a flier that also promoted the Christian bands performing at the festival, it took action.

Marjorie Esman, executive director of ACLU Louisiana told WWL-TV, New Orleans, "We wrote to a letter to the mayor, copied the president of the chamber, asking them for the future to not include religious expression in the event."

Kathy Benoit, president of Thibodeaux Chamber of Commerce, told the station she was surprised by the letter.

"The city's logo appears on the some of marketing materials because of the cooperation we get," said Benoit. "They allow us to use these streets, and it's just a partnership, but they do not give us any money at all."

Esman, however, contends differently.

"We know that the city does provide some funds to the chamber," Esman said. "We're not sure what those funds are used for. The fact is, the city has its official logo on these fliers."

Further, Esman told WWL-TV, "The issue is government endorsement of religious expression. The issue is really not whether the band has a right to play. The issue is whether the government should be in the business of endorsing religious expression."

The Alliance Defense Fund, an alliance of attorneys dedicated to defending religious liberty, has also stepped in, sending a letter in support of the city.

"(The Christian bands') music and their messages are fully protected under the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, regardless of whether the ACLU may be offended by them," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson wrote to Mayor Charles Caillouet in the ADF letter.

"Christians should not be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Contrary to the contentions of the ACLU, they have the same rights of access and participation at the festival as anyone else," wrote Johnson. "The event is a family-friendly food and music festival that is privately funded. The city has done nothing other than allow the festival to be held in its streets. The ACLU's threat is baseless."

Benoit told the Lafourche Parish Daily Comet she has little concern about the ACLU's claims and that the controversy has actually helped advertise the Thibodeauxville Festival.

"In fact, they were talking about it this morning on the radio station down the bayou," Benoit told the Daily Comet. "It's amazing that this issue has gotten now statewide attention, it seems, and that so many people have responded favorably to us and support of this whole situation."

Supremes consider 'Statue of Tyranny'
Sect demands right to erect monuments next to 10 Commandments

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering arguments in a case over whether a "Statue of Tyranny" eventually could be erected in New York Harbor to compete with the Statue of Liberty.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, today told the Supreme Court that it should preserve the sound precedent involving the "well-established distinction between government speech and private speech."

"We're hopeful that the Supreme Court will reject a twisted view of the First Amendment that could create havoc in America over how local, state and federal governments choose to memorialize significant events," he said.

"The basic question is whether a city gets to decide which permanent, unattended monuments, if any, to install on city property. The answer is 'Yes,'" he said. "The fact is that government speech means the government can control its message. For example, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny."

In the case Pleasant Grove City vs. Summum, a lower court issued a ruling that could result in cities, counties and other governmental bodies being forced either to dismantle and remove myriad monuments, memorials and other displays, or else let anyone with an agenda install privately owned monuments and displays on public property.

If the precedent from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver is not overturned, court documents argue, there could even end up being a tribute to Adolf Hitler among a collection of World War II memorials.

The case stems from a claim from a Utah organization called Summum that it has the First Amendment right to demand erection of a monument to its seven "aphorisms" in the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah.

A federal district court declined to order the city to erect Summum's monument, but a three-judge federal appeals court panel in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, opening the door wide for any organization to post virtually any type of monument on any public property for any reason.

The ACLJ then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to review the arguments and make a decision.

"Summum's assertion of a right to force its monument upon the city has no legitimate basis in Supreme Court case law," Sekulow said earlier. "We're hopeful the high court will overturn the 10th Circuit's decision that ultimately would cause havoc for local governments."

The case began with the demand from Summum, which was founded in Salt Lake City in 1975. The group, which calls itself a church, sued Pleasant Grove in federal court, alleging that because the city had a donated Ten Commandments monument in a city park, the First Amendment required the city to accept and display a monument to Summum's seven aphorisms.

The aphorisms, according to the group's website, predate the Ten Commandments and include: The principles of psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, cause and effect, and gender.

The "church" claims the aphorisms were written on the original stone tablets given by God to Moses, which he broke when he saw the Israelites had manufactured a golden calf idol during his absence. The organization says the tablets were broken because Moses realized people couldn't understand the aphorisms, so he came down a second time with the Ten Commandments.

But the dispute over erecting a local monument has national consequences, the ACLJ said.

"The court of appeals' approach would make the government's display of the Statue of Liberty the speech of France, not the United States, entitling others to erect counter-monuments," the ACLJ said. "Likewise, the Vietnam, Korean, World War II, and upcoming Martin Luther King, Jr., monuments in the nation's capital would likely be deemed private speech, not government speech, entitling Summum and everyone else with a monument to occupy their own corner of the National Mall."

The ACLJ said 15 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed on behalf of Pleasant Grove, including from representatives of 14 states and New York City.

Even organizations that typically oppose the ACLJ, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State and People for the American Way, supported the ACLJ's First Amendment free speech questions in the case.

The concept of allowing anything as a monument is "scary," the ACLJ's Frank Manion told WND earlier. "The Minutemen in Massachusetts? We need a Redcoat. A George Washington statue? Why not George the 3rd. A Holocaust memorial? How about a Hitler memorial?"

The ACLJ said the Ten Commandments monuments are the real targets of the legal actions, because in many circumstances, cities or other governments likely would order such monuments removed rather than order acceptance of others.

The ACLJ, which has worked on the case with the Thomas More Law Center, contends the Constitution "does not empower private parties to force permanent displays into a park, crowding out the available physical space and trumping the government's own vision" for the parks.

Brothers and Sisters,

We are seeing tremendous effort by the devil to stop the GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD!

WHY? - It's still the most powerful message in existence, and the devil can't stand it. The forces of darkness don't want to hear it. The GOOD NEWS still saves people, and JESUS CHRIST still rescues the lost from the curse of sin and death. WE DO HAVE VICTORY IN JESUS, AND THAT'S STILL THE ONLY WAY! The devil knows this and hates to even hear - ESPECIALLY THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST! The devil is beaten for Eternity when a lost person gives their heart to JESUS CHRIST.

Most obviously, the devil doesn't like to be beaten, and the devil doesn't want anyone to have VICTORY IN JESUS CHRIST. This is why the devil is so desperate to SHUT CHRISTIANS UP! If we have yielded ourselves to GOD and serve as messengers to share GOD'S GOOD NEWS, we are the worst enemies of the devil. JESUS CHRIST has already given us VICTORY, and our greatest desire should be to lead the lost to that same VICTORY.

GOOD NEWS!

1: Romans 3:10 NASB as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

2: Romans 3:23 NASB for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

3: Romans 5:12 NASB Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

4: Romans 6:23 NASB For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

5: Romans 1:18 NASB For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

6: Romans 3:20 NASB because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

7: Romans 3:27 NASB Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.

8: Romans 5:8-9 NASB But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

9: Romans 2:4 NASB Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

10: Romans 3:22 NASB even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

11: Romans 3:28 NASB For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

12: Romans 10:9 NASB that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

13: Romans 4:21 NASB and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.

14: Romans 4:24 NASB but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,

15: Romans 5:1 NASB Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

16: Romans 10:10 NASB for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

17: Romans 10:13 NASB for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

Thanks be unto GOD for HIS unspeakable GIFT!, JESUS CHRIST, our Lord and Saviour forever!

College threatens pro-life students with arrest
University's lawyers offer choice: Turn signs around or go to jail

Members of a university pro-life club have received a letter from school officials threatening them with fines, arrests and even expulsion if they set up their semiannual display depicting the horrors of abortion.

Each semester since 2006, members of the University of Calgary's Campus Pro-Life student club, called CPL, have displayed a set of 4-by-8-foot signs from the Genocide Awareness Project that protest abortion.

This semester, however, lawyers for the university sent a menacing letter to CPL informing the students that their signs would only be permitted if turned away from passing foot traffic. Violation of this policy, the letter stated, would make pro-life protesters on campus "subject to arrest, fines or a civil lawsuit."

CPL students involved in an outward display of the signs, the letter threatened, would also be subject to discipline, including suspension or expulsion.

"Being told to turn our signs inwards is like being told we can express our views as long as nobody can hear us," CPL declares on its website. "[It's] like telling black people they can ride the bus – but demanding they sit at the back. It's unconscionable!"

The letter from university lawyers explains that the school is within its rights to control what happens on its private property, especially activities that "are likely to trigger violent confrontations."

As WND reported, a group of angry students at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point earlier this year stormed a pro-life protest, uprooting white crosses that were part of the display.

CPL, however, contends that in their five previous displays, the presence of campus security prevented any incidents. The group's president also told LifeSiteNews that CPL requires participating students to commit to a non-violent code of conduct.

In a response-letter to university attorneys, CPL further argued that demanding the group turn their signs away from foot traffic because viewers might have a violent reaction gives the violent few censorship control over peaceable people's freedom of speech.

"When the peaceful expression of an opinion is threatened by violence, the appropriate solution is the provision of security, not censorship of the opinion," writes CPL. "In this context censorship would constitute an affirmation of violence as an effective means to silence unpopular opinions. If the University censors an opinion rather than providing adequate security, the University sends a powerful signal that unpopular or controversial views can be silenced through the threat of violence."

Leah Hallman, CPL's president, told LifeSiteNews, "Banning an event because of the possibility of someone else being violent towards it is like telling women they are not allowed to walk on campus at night because of the possibility they may be sexually assaulted."

Hallman continued, "The right solution to that potential crime is to provide lighting and security to deter the person who might commit such a crime, not to ban the women."

"We do not want to be arrested, but the university's attempt to bully us is wrong," the vice president of CPL, Cameron Wilson, told LifeSiteNews.

Despite the threats, CPL students plan to defy the university's reversal of policy and display the pro-life signs Wednesday and Thursday.

Homosexuality editorial puts 1st Amendment on trial
Woman sues after she was fired for saying being 'gay' is not same as being black

A woman is suing the university where she worked for firing her over a privately written newspaper commentary expressing her Christian views on homosexuality.

Crystal Dixon, the former associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo, was fired in May after she objected to an opinion article in the Toledo Free Press that compared striving for "gay rights" with the civil rights struggles of black Americans.

Dixon responded with a Free Press editorial of her own, written not in her capacity as a university employee but as a private citizen.

"As a Black woman," Dixon wrote, "I take great I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended."

University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs immediately suspended Dixon and condemned her statements. Within days, Dixon was fired.

Now, with the help of the Thomas More Law Center, a not-for-profit law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, Dixon has today filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court claiming violations of her constitutional rights of free speech.

"Crystal Dixon has a constitutional right to privately express her personal opinions," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, in a statement.

"This particular opinion represents the view of a majority of Christian Americans," Thompson continued. "Essentially she was fired for being a Christian."

According to the Free Press, the University of Toledo's media relations policy does not specify whether faculty and staff may submit opinion pieces to the media.

"Supreme Court decisions remind us, that the fact you are a public employee doesn't mean you give up your First Amendment rights," Floyd Weatherspoon, a professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, told the newspaper. "The majority of her column is about her personal views."

Weatherspoon said courts are usually supportive of employees in First Amendment cases, citing Pickering v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled school officials had violated a teacher's free speech rights by censuring him after he criticized them in a newspaper editorial.

The chain of events in Dixon's case was launched by Toledo Free Press Editor in Chief Michael S. Miller's column boasting of his support for the "gay" community.

"I have been tangentially immersed in the gay culture for so long, it's a natural and common aspect of life. Three decades of loving these friends and family and sharing their successes in managing careers and raising families has jaded me to the hatred and prejudice many people had against the gay community. … As a middle-aged, overweight white guy with graying facial hair, I am America's ruling demographic, so the gay rights struggle is something I experience secondhand, like my black friends' struggles and my wheelchair-bound friends' struggles," he wrote.

He then wrote about moderating a town hall meeting sponsored by two homosexual activists groups.

It dealt "with issues of employment discrimination against gay people," he said. According to the panelists, he continued, "UT has offered domestic partner benefits since then-president Dan Johnson signed them into effect. The Medical University of Ohio did not offer those benefits. When the institutions merged, UT employees retained the domestic-partner benefits, but MUO employees were not offered them. So, people working for the same employer do not have access to the same benefits."

Dixon then responded.

"I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider. … First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one's personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative," she said.

"As a black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few."

WND also reported an author who wrote two books about homosexuality told managers at Toledo in an open letter they should praise an administrator who said being "gay" is not the same as black, not punish her.

Robert A.J. Gagnon, the author of "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" and "Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views," said, "Ms. Dixon is absolutely right that sexual orientation is not akin to race or sex. Unlike a homosexual orientation, race and sex are 100 percent congenitally predetermined, cannot be fundamentally changed in their essence by cultural influences, and are not a primary or direct desire for behavior that is incompatible with embodied structures."

"Your suspension of Ms. Crystal Dixon, associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo, for rejecting a comparison between homosexuality on the one hand and being black or handicapped on the other hand constitutes, in my view, a gross injustice and an expression of the very intolerance that you claim to abhor," he wrote.

Gagnon said the closer parallels to adult-committed homosexual relations are not ethnicity or gender but, rather, adult-committed incestuous unions and adult-committed polysexual unions.

"Give America more exposure to upscale, adult-committed polygamous bonds (and adult-committed incestuous bonds) and American will learn to be more tolerant of such bonds…," he wrote. "Those who dismiss a polygamy analogy and an incest analogy on the grounds that polygamy and incest always produce 'demonstrable harm' are simply responding out of their 'polyphobia' and 'incest-phobia.' And then you can suspend people who say critical things about such relationships, once you overcome your own prejudices."

Gagnon, who holds degrees from Princeton, Harvard and Dartmouth, wrote the "Sexuality" entry for the "New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics," the same entry for the "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of Scripture," and dozens of other such articles. He's written for "Theology Matters," "Catholic Biblical Quarterly" and "Journal of Biblical Literature."

He says the most "shameful" part of the University of Toledo's actions is that managers are shutting off any dissent.

Such actions "come out of the Stalinistic, Soviet state. This is the kind of elimination of any expression of differences of opinion [found there]," he said.

Atheists: Remove 'God' from Kentucky terrorism law

A group of atheists filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to remove part of a state anti-terrorism law that requires Kentucky's Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge it can't keep the state safe without God's help.

American Atheists Inc. sued in state court over a 2002 law that stresses God's role in Kentucky's homeland security alongside the military, police agencies and health departments.

Of particular concern is a 2006 clause requiring the Office of Homeland Security to post a plaque that says the safety and security of the state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God" and to stress that fact through training and educational materials. The plaque, posted at the Kentucky Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort, includes the Bible verse: "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

"It is one of the most egregiously and breathtakingly unconstitutional actions by a state legislature that I've ever seen," said Edwin F. Kagin, national legal director of Parsippany, NJ-based American Atheists Inc. The group claims the law violates both the state and U.S. constitutions.

But Democratic state Rep. Tom Riner, a Baptist minister from Louisville, said he considers it vitally important to acknowledge God's role in protecting Kentucky and the nation. "No government by itself can guarantee perfect security," Riner said. "There will always be this opposition to the acknowledgment of divine providence, but this is a foundational understanding of what America is."

Kentucky has been at the center of a series of legal battles involving religious issues in recent years, most involving displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings. One case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2005 that such displays inside courthouses in two counties were unconstitutional.

Kentucky isn't the only state dealing with religious issues, but Ed Buckner, president of American Atheists, said it's alone in officially enlisting God in homeland security. "I'm not aware of any other state or commonwealth that is attempting to dump their clear responsibility for protecting their citizens onto God or any other mythological creature," Buckner said.

State Rep. David Floyd, R-Bardstown, said the preamble to the Kentucky constitution references a people "grateful to almighty God," so he said he sees no constitutional violation in enlisting God in the state's homeland security efforts. "God help us if we don't," he said.

Cops use banned noise ordinance against street preacher
Court orders limit tossed, but officers say it doesn't apply to them

Attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund earlier this year settled a case against Ithaca, N.Y., over an ordinance that violated the free speech rights of a street preacher. A federal court banned enforcement of the disputed rule, which restricted sounds that could be heard from 25 feet away.

But it took only a couple of visits from another street evangelist, and the attorneys were back in court with another action against Ithaca. Police officers who were told about the court order insisted it didn't apply to them, because they weren't involved in the first case.

The original 1999 dispute, involving Kevin Deegan, was settled earlier this year, according to ADF officials. The resolution included a court order prohibiting officials "from enforcing a municipal code that ... restricts sounds on public streets, sidewalks, or paths that can be heard from 25 feet," which, the legal group noted, would ban sneezing or cell phone rings.

"Three months ago, a friend of Kevin's, Jim Deferio was standing at Kevin's accustomed spot on the commons, doing a little preaching of his own. He, too, was approached by police officers who told him he'd have to stop, since he was violating the same city ordinance their predecessors had invoked against Kevin," the ADF said in a new report.

"The next week, Kevin went back to the spot with Jim, and the two of them were approached by police, citing the same law. Kevin produced a copy of the federal court order authorizing him to exercise his rights, but the officers told him – incredibly – that the order didn't apply to them – only to the specific officers who had confronted Kevin years earlier," the ADF reported.

"So, now ADF is representing Jim. We've filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Ithaca on his behalf, along with a motion asking the court to suspend the ordinance while the case moves forward."

Nate Kellum, a senior counsel with ADF, commented.

"Police officers cannot step beyond their authority and illegally suppress Christian speech in defiance of a court order," he said.

The new complaint explains, "This is a civil rights action challenging city ordinances and policy, on their face and as applied, that prohibit noise heard 25 feet from its source in the City of Ithaca. These precise ordinances and policy of City of Ithaca have already been declared unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and enjoined by this court in Deegan v. City of Ithaca, et al."

City officials did not respond to a WND request for comment today.

The original case involving Deegan came when he was delivering a Gospel message in Ithaca Commons. Officers cited Deegan under the noise ordinance – the only apparent use of that ordinance in its history at that time – despite any number of "recreation activities, celebrations, demonstrations, rallies, musical performances, poetry readings, speeches, and other expressive undertakings" that have gone on there.

Deegan was told the city banned sound loud enough to be heard more than 25 feet away.

"Kevin was understandably stunned," ADF said. "Under those restrictions, public sneezing would be illegal on the streets of Ithaca. So would almost every other activity then under way on the commons. Indeed, as a noise expert hired by the Alliance Defense Fund (which represented Kevin) testified, this city ordinance would outlaw even such everyday sounds as the clicking of boots, small children playing, a ringing cell phone, and normal-decibel conversations."

Ultimately, the appeals court panel ruled in favor of Deegan's First Amendment right to free speech, even on the Ithaca Commons, ADF reported.

"Noisy free speech abounds here, yet Mr. Deegan was limited to a whisper," Kellum said.

The appeals court ruling said the city's officials could not "justify their even stricter regulation of Deegan's speech in the Commons, which is a public forum bustling with the sounds of recreation, celebration, commerce, demonstration, rallies, music, poetry, speeches, and other expressive undertakings."

Brothers and Sisters,

There are lawful noise ordinances that are quite reasonable in most jurisdictions, and they usually involve decibels. Most of them would require the use of some kind of sound equipment, and they easily relate to public peace and safety. I heard about that 25 foot ordinance several times over the years, and it has been struck down many times. The reasonable noise ordinances apply to people being able to sleep at night, drive on a public street safely, and other quite reasonable objectives. Lawful noise ordinances are nothing but common sense, but this one appears to be for the express purpose of Christian discrimination and persecution. By the way, it is reasonable for cities to require a permit for the use of sound equipment. The time of day, location, and other public annoyance or safety factors are reasonable in granting or denying the permit. Unreasonable requirements that don't involve common sense are usually violations of the Constitution. The "Reasonable Man" doctrine under the Law is usually a good method to define what's reasonable or unreasonable, and all factors can be considered under the "Reasonable Man" doctrine. As an example, honking your horn on your car is for emergency use only because it causes high decibels that can easily disturb or annoy, OR maybe even cause an accident. Under the "Reasonable Man" doctrine, a car horn would be used only in emergencies.

In case you're wondering, I seriously doubt that many police departments use Unconstitutional laws to persecute or discriminate against Christians. I could be wrong, but I think that the vast majority of police departments still have no desire at all to mistreat Christians. At present, it appears that only isolated law enforcement agencies in some parts of the country are involved in the persecution of Christians. HOWEVER, things are changing and Christians should expect increasing persecution as the End Days of this Age of Grace draw nearer. Things like this were almost unheard of just a few short years ago.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 104:24 NASB O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; The earth is full of Your possessions.

Psalms 56:3-4 What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee. 4 In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me.

1 John 2:15-17 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

'No gods' campaign ignites Christian fire
Group promises to oppose 'nutty' atheists

Atheists across America have started demanding that they be allowed to post their own promotion during the Christmas season when Nativity scenes appear among other holiday emblems on government grounds, and now an organization has announced a plan to fight back.

Among the most common slogans used by atheist organizations is one that has sparked a controversy in the state of Washington, where it is displayed on a sign adjacent to a Christian Nativity.

The sign states, "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."

The sign has generated controversy that has prompted the state to re-evaluate its holiday decoration policy.

But now leaders of InGodWeTrustUSA.org say their members will work with state lawmakers and others to try to prevent such attacks on religion, specifically Christianity.

"We're certainly not going to give them an easy time," Bishop Council Nedd, chief of the InGodWeTrustUSA.org organization told WND today.

"We're looking into how to go about this," he said. "Our 60,000 members are going to try to lobby their state legislators to do what they can in various states and in Congress to keep these signs from being posted, or whether this is even our option."

Nedd's group said similar signs now are on display in Olympia, Wash.; Madison, Wis.; and Springfield, Ill.

"This new attack on the faith is an insult and In God We Trust will oppose any effort to place these signs in any state capitol or in any government location in Washington, D.C.," Nedd said.

"These signs having nothing in common with a menorah, a Nativity scene or a Christmas tree. The message of these ads is one of hate and division. They are yet another attempt by anti-religious bigots to denigrate faith and equate a belief in God with enslavement and to ridicule the vast majority of Americans who believe in God.

"Why do these zealots have the right to post signs on public property attacking their countrymen?" Nedd added. "Would anyone stand for an equally hate-filled message being posted by the Klan on Martin Luther King's Birthday? Of course not. Yet that is exactly what these atheist bigots want. And their next step will be to demand one of these signs be posted on the National Mall in Washington, D.C."

The Washington state sign was erected by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. In a recent CNN interview, organization chief Dan Barker said, "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."

Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly reported the case.

"Seattle now rivals San Francisco for secular-progressive nuttiness," O'Reilly said. "The city fathers are allowing public nakedness in city parks, nude bike riding, and in Fremont, a Seattle suburb, they actually put up a statue honoring Lenin, the father of communism."

O'Reilly said Washington state is '"fairly conservative," except for Seatte, where "far-left zealots are running wild."

"However, they may have overstepped on this Christmas deal," he said. "I believe that most Americans, even those living in far-left enclaves, respect uplifting traditions like Christmas where peace and love are the theme of the great day. Calling religion 'enslaving' doesn't exactly fit into the peace and love scenario, does it?"

In God We Trust describes itself as a national political advocacy organization committed to providing an active voice in opposition to the special interest groups that seek to ban God, religion, and America's religious history from public display and public discourse.

Nedd is a traditional Episcopal priest serving as bishop of the Chesapeake and Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church.

State ban on Christian charities dropped
Agrees to let workers donate to faith-based groups

Officials in Iowa have agreed to let employees participating in a government program to donate to charities choose Christian organizations, overturning a state ban that was the target of a lawsuit by the Alliance Defense Fund.

It's at least the fourth state in which the dispute has arisen, according to officials.

The newest situation has been resolved with an agreement from the Iowa Department of Administration to let state workers contribute to faith-based charities under the state's Iowa One Gift program, the ADF said.

"Religious charities providing critical social services should not be discriminated against simply because they practice their religious beliefs and hire persons who share them," said M. Casey Mattox, litigation counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom of the Christian Law Society, which also worked on the case.

"While it is disappointing that legal action was even necessary to address this clear constitutional violation, we applaud the state for eventually getting it right and amending its rules to respect religious freedom," Mattox said.

Officials said the state agreed to correct rules that previously excluded faith-based organizations from getting voluntary donations through a payroll deduction system.

Attorneys with the ADF and the CLS had filed suit in March alleging the rules excluding religious charities violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The rules of the Iowa One Gift program excluded any charitable organization that "engages in any way in sectarian activities," advocates "religious viewpoints" or "discriminates" on the basis of religion in employment.

The department has now eliminated the exclusion of "sectarian" and "religious" charities and amended its nondiscrimination rule to only require employment practices to comply with Iowa employment law, which includes an exemption for the faith-based hiring policies of religious employers, officials said.

As a result of the changes, ADF and CLS attorneys will voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit, Association of Faith-Based Organizations v. Anderson, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

The same issue also has arisen in Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin, officials said.

In Wisconsin, a federal district court ruled in 2006 in favor of the Association of Faith-Based Organizations which sued for being denied permission to participate in Wisconsin's State Employees Combined Campaign.

The order prohibited the program from denying religious organizations permission to participate.

Also in 2006, attorneys for the ADF and CLS successful worked with Michigan officials to allow religious charitable groups to participate in the Michigan State Employees Combined Campaign.

The next year the dispute came up in Florida, where state officials ultimately agreed to amend state rules for their Florida State Employees' Charitable Campaign.

Under the Florida agreement, the state adopted rules to ensure religious charities no longer would be excluded because of their religious viewpoints.

The AFBO is an association of non-profit religious charities seeking to protect the constitutional freedom of religious organizations to staff and select members on a religious basis. AFBO is comprised of social service providers, educational institutions, membership associations, and advocacy outreach organizations, including the Christian Legal Society and other non-profit organizations.

Court considers ACLU demand for Bible ban
School policy targeted for treating Scriptures equally

A federal appeals court is considering a Missouri dispute in which the American Civil Liberties Union challenged a school district policy that treated the Bible the same as other books and demanded the authority to veto what would be handed out to students.

The controversy arose over a request by the Gideons to distribute Bibles in the South Iron School District, which has a neutral policy that allows distribution of outside literature by various groups under set rules, irrespective of whether the literature is secular or religious.

"Under this policy, an outside group may offer Bibles to students who wish to take them in the same manner as other nonreligious groups are permitted to distribute secular literature," according to Liberty Counsel, whose chief, Mathew Staver, argued the case today before a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

The Bible distribution was targeted by an ACLU lawsuit in 2006, and the school responded with a written policy that treats all literature the same.

But at the trial court level, Judge Catherine Perry issued an order specifically prohibiting distribution of the Bible, and the Bible alone, after calling it an "instrument of religion."

She said the district's neutral treatment of literature is unacceptable, because it actually would allow the distribution of the Bible.

"The ruling presented a novel (and unconstitutional) theory that a private third party (like the ACLU) must have the opportunity to veto the distribution request of the private applicant," Liberty Counsel said. "The veto power, the judge wrote, must be provided to veto religious, but not secular, literature."

Staver said the Constitution simply doesn't allow the Bible to be singled out, like contraband, for special penalties.

"How ironic that in America, until recent times, the Bible formed the basis of education, and now its mere presence is radioactive in the opinion of some judges," he said. "The Founders never envisioned such open hostility toward the Christian religion as we see today in some venues. To single out the Bible alone for discriminatory treatment harkens back to the Dark Ages. America deserves better. Our Constitution should be respected, not disregarded."

Staver told WND that a decision is not expected to be announced for about two months.

He said the lower court's ban targets only the Bible.

"The Quran is OK, and other kinds of religious texts; just not the Bible. The Bible alone is impermissible in the public school," he said.

WND reported earlier when a brief was filed with the federal appeals court.

Among the groups that have distributed material at the school are the Army Corps of Engineers, Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Iron County Health Department, Missouri Water Patrol, Missouri Highland Healthcare and Union Pacific Railroad, officials said.

"The ACLU might not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but the Constitution requires equal treatment. The First Amendment protects private religious viewpoints. Hecklers may heckle but they may not veto private religious speech. ... Religious viewpoints have Constitutional protection," Staver said.

The minutes from board meetings noted the board president "explained to the board at this point, we are an open forum and any group can request to enter our school and distribute materials – atheists, communists, gay rights, etc." The minutes note the board members acknowledged the policy.

However, Perry banned the district "from distributing or allowing distribution of Bibles to elementary school children on school property at any time during the school day."

"The district court also opined that 'Bibles are different' from other forms of religious literature," Liberty Counsel said.

The Gideons, a group founded in the late 1800s, have as their "sole purpose" the goal "to win men, women, boys and girls to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ through association for service, personal testimony, and distributing the Bible in the human traffic lanes and streams of everyday life."

Gideons have placed the Bible in 181 nations in 82 different languages over the years.

The organization focuses on hotels and motels, hospitals and nursing homes, schools, colleges and universities, the military, law enforcement, prisons and jails.

"The demand for Scriptures in these areas far exceeds our supplies that we are able to purchase through our donations," the group said. Much more could be done – if funds were available. However, we are placing and distributing more than one million copies of the Word of God, at no cost, every seven days in these areas. ..."

The Gideons is the oldest Christian business and professional men's association in the U.S.

'Under God' foe's defamation complaint tossed
Sued WND, minister for commentary critical of lawsuit against school district

California attorney Michael Newdow, who pushed a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in an unsuccessful effort to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, has lost a defamation complaint against a pastor who criticized him.

According to the Thomas More Law Center, a court ruling has dismissed Newdow's defamation complaint against Rev. Austin Miles. Newdow also had targeted WND with his legal action but agreed to release the news site from his case.

"We are pleased with the court's decision," said Law Center attorney Brandon Bolling, who tried the case before Judge Barbara Zuniga. "It was very clear from the start that Newdow's claims against Reverend Miles had no merit."

The judge concluded in a ruling released Nov. 20 that Newdow was not defamed and was not entitled to damages. The dismissal was with prejudice, meaning the claim cannot be refiled, the legal advocacy group said.

The law center said the claim was based on an article Miles wrote asserting Newdow had lied to the court in the Pledge of Allegiance case by claiming his daughter was forced to recite the words "under God" at her school.

Miles' commentary noted Newdow's daughter actually is a Christian who willingly said the Pledge.

Newdow initially was awarded, in June 2004, a default judgment against Miles for $1 million, but the law center said Miles hadn't been notified of the complaint. He contacted the Thomas More Law Center after learning about the award, and lawyers persuaded the court to set aside the judgment and allow the case to proceed to trial

Mark A. Thiel of Stockton, Calif., assisted the law center as local counsel.

The case previously involved WND, the Internet's leading independent news site.

But shortly after naming WND has a defendant, Newdow agreed to drop the organization from the complaint.

The case, which originated about six years ago, alleged WND published a quote from Newdow that his daughter "was forced to recite, caused her emotional damage, stress, anxiety and a sense of being left out."

The lawsuit alleged the quote was never said by Newdow.

But WND did not publish the quotation, and Newdow quickly agreed to dismiss WND as a defendant.

Newdow attained national prominence by suing his then-8-year-old daughter's Sacramento school district, claiming that having public-school students recite the Pledge is a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition of "an establishment of religion."

In March 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in his favor, prompting widespread national outrage. The U.S. Supreme Court later rejected his claim on a technicality, explaining that he didn't have standing to bring the action.

According to published reports, Newdow's daughter and her mother at the time attended an evangelical Christian church and had no opposition to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Newdow, in a contemporaneous interview with Fox News, said his case "is more about me than her," referring to his daughter.

He later launched a renewed attack on the "under God" words in the Pledge. He's also challenged in a separate action the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.

Brad Dacus, who directs the work of the Pacific Justice Institute, told WND his chief counsel, Kevin Snider, pointed out that the motto actually does not "endorse" religion and to remove it actually would be an act of hostility toward religion.

"We pointed out to the court that the phrase 'In God We Trust' in no way amounts to an endorsement of any particular religion or sect," he told WND. "Courts have made clear distinctions between a generic acknowledgement of God and an endorsement of a particular religion."

Dacus also said legal precedent has been to allow references to God "in a context that is commemorative or reflective of our nation's history or heritage."

He also pointed out that should the motto be banned from currency, there still would be problems in the U.S., because the Declaration of Independence as well as the U.S. Constitution contain references to God or a creator.

The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 by Congress. Two years later, Congress made "In God We Trust" the country's official motto.

As WND reported, the Texas Legislature has voted to add the words "under God" to the state pledge.

Islamic star, crescent join
Christmas tree, menorah
Town votes for 'spirit of inclusion': 'Jesus Christ
himself would have gathered everyone around him'

The decision by a New York village to place the Islamic star and crescent alongside the community's official Christmas tree has a Catholic leader wondering if there are any wise men among the town's leaders.

Supervisors for Armonk, N.Y. voted to display a menorah and a star and crescent at tonight's Christmas tree lighting ceremony at the town's gazebo.

"We've decided to go in the direction of being all-inclusive," Supervisor Reese Berman told Associated Press.

The village had added the menorah previously. Last year, town resident Asad Jilani, saying the Christmas season is an appropriate time to celebrate all cultures, asked the board to include Islamic symbols as well.

"I said 'Oh, there's a menorah and a Christmas tree and where is my crescent?'" said Jilani.

Berman, who is Jewish, said the town did not have time to adequately address Jilani's request last year and, to not make Muslims feel they were being specifically excluded, the menorah was removed to a local synagogue.

"The last thing I was suggesting was to move the menorah," Jilani said. "I wanted this to be for openness, for representing everyone."

Would you like to be able to give friends and relatives exactly the right gifts this holiday season– but you just aren't sure what they would like? Shop.WND.com gift certificates is the answer.

This year, after a committee researched the law and what was being done in other communities, Armonk leaders voted to include the star and crescent, even though the closest Islamic festival of Eid al-Adha does not always fall in December.

"It might have been easier to just do away with the Christmas tree and everything else but it would be too much of an assault on what we're used to at Christmas," said Berman.

According to the board's guidelines, any group interested in displaying a privately-funded symbol through the Christmas season must submit a formal application. The board makes no determination as to whether a symbol is secular or religious. The process is open to all religions.

"Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans are Americans and respect other religions," said Laila Al-Qatami, spokeswoman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Washington. "They know that Christmas is a big holiday and they're glad to be included."

That's a sentiment that feels right to Catholic-raised Judy Wesley, director of the Armonk Chamber of Commerce.

"In my opinion there's nothing wrong with having a spirit of inclusion," she said. "Jesus Christ himself would have gathered everyone around him."

Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, disagrees, saying the town has chosen to display Jewish and Islamic religious symbols while leaving out the Christian religious symbol of the season, a Nativity scene. He does not believe the Christmas tree is a religious symbol.

Further, he says, the inclusive display "shows tremendous sympathy for Jews and Muslims at the expense of the majority Christians."

Atheist: U.S. troops 'evangelizing' in combat
Soldier suing Defense Secretary Robert Gates, claims discrimination by Christians

An atheist soldier who is suing Secretary Robert Gates for purportedly violating his religious rights is amending his lawsuit to include allegations of evangelizing in combat.

U.S. Army Spc. Dustin Chalker, a combat medic, claims videos discovered by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation reveal soldiers and Christian missionaries declaring their faith and saying they would like to spread Christianity to Muslims, the Associated Press reports. The recording allegedly shows embedded missionaries distributing Bibles.

"What we're putting in is shocking," Military Religious Freedom Foundation President Mikey Weinstein told AP.

He added that missionary efforts endanger the U.S. military because Muslims are convinced the United States is on a crusade to convert them.

Chalker's attorney, Pedro Irigonegaray, said the grievance against the Department of Defense will be filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan., within weeks.

"[The video] has the clear potential to galvanize those who see us as the enemy," Irigonegaray said. "It's against the law. It is inconceivable to see this type of behavior and not assume that significant members of the United States military are aware of this behavior and approve of it."

According to the report, the video was recorded for a Trinity Broadcasting Network program called "Travel the Road" that aired on April 2006. It features missionaries Tim Scott and Will Decker in Afghanistan and also shows members of the Oklahoma National Guard.

Chalker filed suit against Gates and the DOD in October, claiming he was forced to be present for Christian prayers at a Fort Riley, Kan., change of command ceremony, a formation and a barbecue.

The lawsuit cites presentations by "anti-Muslim activists" and a "spiritual handbook" for soldiers endorsed by Gen. David Petraeus.

No, Christ isn't allowed in Christmas
6th-grader's teacher says Jesus can't be mentioned in seasonal poem

A public school teacher in Mississippi marked down an eleven-year-old's Christmas poem assignment and told the boy to rewrite it because he used the word "Jesus," which, the instructor explained, is a name not allowed in school.

Liberty Counsel, a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, reports that sixth-grader Andrew White of Hattiesburg, Miss., chose to write the poem on the assignment "What Christmas means to me."

After White turned in his rough draft, however, his teacher circled the word "Jesus" and deducted a point from his grade. The teacher then explained that he needed to rewrite the poem without the offending word.

When White's parents questioned the teacher, Liberty Counsel reports, they received a response email explaining, "[Andrew] and another child did a poem about Christ. I know we can't discuss these type [sic] of things in school so I asked the two of them to do another poem of their choice."

Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, expressed dismay that despite many legal clarifications on the issue, there are still educationl officials that mistakenly believe students can't speak of their faith at school.

"Some educators need education that the story of Christmas is not banned from public schools," Staver said in a statement.

Staver says he was "horrified that a sixth-grader was told by his teacher, 'we can't discuss these types of things in school.' I don't understand why some people don't get it. Christmas is a state and federal holiday. Schools are closed to celebrate this holiday. Obviously, Christmas is constitutional."

The principal at White's Thames Elementary School agreed with Staver.

After White's parents encouraged Andrew to turn in his first, unedited poem, Principal Carrie Hornsby changed the boy's grade to a 100 and conceded that there was nothing improper in using Jesus' name. Hornsby also coordinated a mailing to all the school's parents, explaining that students' religious expression is permitted under federal guidelines.

White's parents, however, told OneNewsNow that the situation has caused them to consider homeschooling their son, concerned about other challenges to the faith Andrew may be experiencing apart from their knowledge.

Andrew's original poem, "A Great Christmas," reads: "The best Christmas ever is when everyone is there. It is when everyone is laughing here and there. That is the Christmas I want to share. Christmas is about Jesus’ birth. About peace on Earth. This is what Christmas is about. It is when He lay in a manger. And the three wise men come to see. That's what it means to me."

Religious tunes banned by school
Public interest law firm fight what it calls 'anti-Christmas virus'

A public interest law firm has launched a new attack on what it calls an "anti-Christmas virus" evidenced by a school district that banned even traditional Christmas tunes.

According to the Thomas More Law Center, the public interest firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., its lawyers have filed a brief in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in a case challenging a New Jersey district's ban on the melodies.

"As so often is the case," the firm said in its announcement, "a complaint from one parent resulted in the district's policy that banned the playing of all Christmas music, including simple instrumentals without words."

The case dates from more than four years ago, when the issue arose at the South Orange-Maplewood School District.

WND earlier reported on the case brought on behalf of Michael Stratechuk and his two children, who are students in the New Jersey district.

The district had decreed that performances would be limited to selections such as "Winter Wonderland" and "Frosty the Snowman," with a complete ban on tuns about Jesus and even Santa Claus.

The high school's brass ensemble had to rebuild its repertoire, the Martin Luther King Gospel Choir was ordered not to perform and "printed programs" were edited to remove any "graphics which refer to the holidays, such as Christmas trees."

Just a year before the policy was imposed, the school district's holiday concert had featured "Joy to the World," "O Come All Ye Faithful," and "Silent Night.'

The policy to cleanse the religious holiday of religious music was imposed after a closed-session meeting.

The Center's brief says the ban "conveys the impermissible, government-sponsored message of disapproval of and hostility toward religion in violation of the Establishment Clause, and it deprives the students of the school district the right to receive information and ideas, an inherent corollary of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom."

"This anti-religious policy is yet another example of the militant hostility that many public schools have towards Christians and Christmas," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center.

"Traditional Christmas music has long echoed in the halls and auditoriums of our nation's public schools, reflecting our national celebration of this holiday season," he continued. "Unfortunately, our recent history has not been so favorable to this holiday and its traditions. Even the word 'Christmas' itself is becoming a forbidden expression – a casualty to the forces of political correctness that consider it enlightened, if not outright fashionable, to remove all traces of religion from the public domain.

"If we do not stop these policies now, it is likely that they will continue to spread across our nation like an anti-Christian virus. This is an important case; it will likely decide the fate of one of our most cherished traditions," he said.

Robert Muise is the Law Center attorney handling the case.

He said, "Christmas is a national holiday, and religious music in the public schools is one of the rich traditions of this season. Those that are hostile to these traditions hide behind the mantle of 'tolerance,' only to promote intolerance. Indeed, we learn to understand and respect traditions, customs, and beliefs not by being offended or threatened by the traditions of others, but by understanding the meaning of such traditions and why they have the capacity to inspire."

Quote from: Pastor Roger on December 25, 2008, 10:34:37 AM

Brothers and Sisters,

We should all recognize things like this for what they are: preparation for the devil's last stand. There is GREAT POWER in any TRUE MESSAGE ABOUT CHRIST! This is why the devil and the forces of darkness are trying to shut Christians up and ban every way to share any portion of the CHRIST MESSAGE! For the devil, the most dangerous name in existence is JESUS CHRIST. He doesn't want to hear that HOLY NAME or anything about that HOLY NAME. Christians have suffered all kinds of persecution throughout history to share the GOOD NEWS OF JESUS CHRIST! SO, this isn't new, but it is different and more GLOBAL because the last days of the devil are drawing near. The attempts to SILENCE the CHRIST MESSAGE is more desperate and wide-spread. Many Christians are ALREADY dying RIGHT NOW to share the CHRIST MESSAGE OF GOOD NEWS! NO! - we will not stop! NO! - we will not renounce JESUS CHRIST, our LORD and SAVIOUR Forever!

Brothers and Sisters, I'm convinced that worse times are coming, and the Bible clearly tells us this. We don't know when the 7 Year Tribulation Period will start, but it is probably SOON. The time of the BEAST will come, and people will be forced to take his mark or be beheaded. Those who take his mark will be damned to the eternal fires of hell. Hosts of people will accept JESUS CHRIST during the Tribulation Period, and hosts will be beheaded. This short life is NOT all there is. There is a great war going on between good and evil as we speak. CHRIST HIMSELF will win this war at HIS Appointed Time. Until then, GOD'S WORD tells us what the future holds. For Christians, physical death simply means "Absent from the body - present with the LORD." Christians throughout history have had the backbone, with GOD'S Help, to stand up for JESUS CHRIST and share the GOOD NEWS that the world is so desperate for. This lost and dying world is more desperate for this Precious Message than ever, and the Messengers of this GOOD NEWS will never be stopped! GOD'S WORD will endure forever, and no force can destroy it. The time will come when everyone will be given an opportunity to DENY CHRIST - WHAT WILL YOU DO? Does it matter what the consequences are? My answer is "NO!" - I will not DENY CHRIST, and I won't sit down and shut up! If this leads to my physical death, I can't think of a better reason or way to die.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Matthew 5:11 NASB "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

Traditional family defenders now in 'gay' agenda bull's-eye
Licensing proposal could require lawyers to endorse homosexuality

One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.

That's because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won't let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client. Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, warns that the proposal is just the "tip of the iceberg."

According to reports in Arizona, the state bar is considering a major change to its existing oath that requires lawyers to affirm they won't "permit considerations of gender, race, age, nationality, disability or social standing to influence my duty of care" to clients.

The proposal in Arizona is to add "sexual orientation" to that list.

The concept would demand that Christian lawyers affirm they would pursue child custody cases for lesbians and "marriage" rights for homosexuals just as they would pursue any other issue for clients, regardless of their religious perspective.

Not agreeing to the demand would end a Christian lawyer's career before it even starts, since attorneys cannot practice law without bar association permission.

Already, several dozen attorneys have sent a letter objecting to the plan, and concern has been raised by the online Catholic.org report.

"Are these lawyers going to be excluded from their profession because of their religious beliefs? Or will they have to give up their beliefs in order to continue practicing?" the report asked.

"The Catholic Church teaches that: 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.," Catholic Online continued. "Does this mean that all Catholic lawyers in the state of Arizona will now either have to apostatize from the faith or lose their jobs?"

Staver has argued in courts across the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court, on a wide range of fundamental constitutional questions. He's appeared to discuss constitutional issues on "The O'Relly Factor," "Hannity and Colmes," "Good Morning American," the "Today" show and others. He said Arizona's plan isn't unique, citing controversial provisions already in force in Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

But he said Arizona's proposal is broader, and therein could lie considerable discrimination against Christians.

"It is a disturbing trend," he said.

"It opens a wide door (against) people like us who defend traditional marriage," he said. "We're not going to represent someone who's engaged in the homosexual lifestyle and the issue deals with that matter.

"Obviously from our perspective, we would take that into consideration," he said.

Staver said the change actually would require Christian lawyers to endorse and support the homosexual lifestyle choice that their deeply held religious beliefs may not allow.

"What if you represent someone in a divorce and you're the attorney of record. Afterwards this person enters into a lesbian lifestyle and wants a change of custody. They want the child. That presents Christian attorneys with a conflict with their religious beliefs. Would (that Christian lawyer) want to continue to represent that person?" he asked. "It would be pushing that child into a homosexual lifestyle."

Staver said he's seen the threat to lawyers coming for some time already.

"We've talked about the fact one of the major threats coming down the road as Christian attorneys is bar regulations with regard to homosexuality," he said. "What we're seeing in Arizona is the tip of the iceberg.

"If they can license you out of defending traditional morality, they can eventually capture the whole court system. There would be nobody left to defend traditional marriage," he said.

Staver said there already are a number of bar association codes preventing lawyers from "denigrating" others such as opposing counsel. For example, remarks on race or sex are disallowed.

When homosexuality is given the special protected status previously reserved for issues like race, Christians face choices for which there is no right answer, he said.

"These are significant threats," Staver said. "It further illustrates the conflict between the homosexual agenda and the Christian world view."

He noted the attacks already have begun. Opposing lawyers in lesbian custody dispute in which Liberty Counsel is participating already have asked the court to fine Staver's organization $100,000, accusing the group of being "engaged in a nationwide effort to take away rights of gays and lesbians," he said.

Such attacks on Christian lawyers mirror attacks already taking place on Christian churches because of their biblical disapproval of the homosexual livestyle.

Staver's organization is working on one such case, a discrimination complaint brought by two lesbians who were denied permission to rent a Christian group's facilities for a "ceremony."

That pending situation involves the United Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which has been accused by the government in New Jersey of discriminating against a self-described lesbian duo, Luisa Paster and Harriet Bernstein, who were denied permission to rent a church pavilion.

The pavilion is on church-owned beachfront property near Asbury Park and had been open to the public for decades under an agreement reached between the church and the local government.

One of the provisions of the agreement was that the pavilion would be open to the public "on an equal basis," according to the report from Liberty Counsel. But in 2007 the state adopted a new definition of equal, granting civil union rights to same-sex couples. The lesbians wanted the pavilion, the church refused on grounds its religious beliefs did not allow that, and the state now is pursuing a discrimination case.

God doesn't exist? Proof demanded!
Dispute is latest in war over bus advertisements

A complaint has been filed with the government over a series of advertisements posted on buses that suggest God doesn't exist, demanding proof of the statement in order to comply with federal truth-in-advertising laws.

Officials with the Christian Voice in the United Kingdom have brought the issue of the truthfulness of the "no-God" ads to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority, which regulates ad statements across the nation.

It's just the latest skirmish in a long-running dispute over such advertisements: statements by the Christian Voice have in the past been targeted by those who want proof there is a God.

According to the Christian Voice, it is raising questions now about ads that state, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Spokesman Stephen Green has suggested the ads break the ASA's requirements for substantiation and truthfulness.

"Advertisements are not allowed to mislead consumers," said a statement on the organization's website. "This means that advertisers must hold evidence to prove the claims they make about their produces or services before an ad appears."

Green continued, "According to one national newspaper, 'some atheist supporters of the campaign were disappointed that the wording of the adverts did not declare categorically that God does not exist, although there were fears that this could break advertising guidelines.'

"Well, I believe the ad breaks the Advertising Code anyway, unless the advertisers hold evidence that God probably does not exist," he said.

"The ASA does not just cover goods and services, it covers all advertising. The advertisers cannot hide behind the ASA's 'matters of opinion' exclusion, because no person or body is named as the author of the statement. It is given as a statement of fact and that means it must be capable of substantiation if it is not to break the rules."

He said there is ample evidence there is a God: "from peoples' personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world."

But, he said, "there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."

Published reports said the advertisement is being carried on about 800 buses in England, Scotland and Wales as well as on the London Underground in a $200,000 month-long campaign supported by the British Humanist Association and atheist Richard Dawkins.

The "no-God" campaign was prompted, the organization said, by comedy writer Ariane Sherine.

"Apparently, Miss Sherine saw a red London bus in June 2008 with a Bible quote and the URL of a website. When she visited the website (www.jesussaid.org.uk), she was told that non-Christians would burn in hell for all eternity," Christian Voice said.

"This so upset her that, with the help of prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, she started a campaign which raised a massive amount of money for what amounts to an agnostic evangelistic crusade."

Green said there shouldn't have been an issue for Sherine.

"If she does not believe in a final judgment, what is her problem? And if she does believe in an afterlife, where does think she is going to spend it? She won't like heaven, because God is there," he said.

He said his own organization also is under investigation for an advertorial it placed in the New Statesman, following a single complaint about its commentary.

It said: "There is a Biblical principle that we reap what we sow. It applies to nations as well as to individuals. What politicians sow, the people reap. When politicians sow evil, the people reap misery, and the poorest reap it the worst."

It then described the damages from government policies in society, and said, "But now we have the disaster of teenage infertility. Every government initiative, including the HPV vaccine, will increase it, but as all the targets revolve around pregnancy, no-one in power knows how many young people they are making sterile and nobody cares."

Detractors demanded "robust, scientific evidence that the HPV vaccine caused infertility in teenagers," but missed the point "that it is the encouragement of promiscuity in government teen sex initiatives which spreads the infections which to the damage," the organization said.

It was just a few weeks earlier when the same government agency banned an ad campaign by a Presbyterian church explaining the Bible's condemnation of homosexual behavior.

According to LifeSiteNews, the campaign by Sandown Free Presbyterian Church included an ad denouncing behavior at last year's "gay pride" march in Belfast.

The ads pointed out that sodomy is described in the Bible as an "abomination."

The report said even though such statements merely repeating the Bible, the ASA prohibited future publication.

The report then said Ian Paisley, one of the church founders, confirmed the order would be ignored>

"We believe the Bible is the written word of God – the infallible word of God, and it has to be obeyed, so we will obey God rather than men, and if it means there has to be court proceedings, if it means even that we are going to be jailed for holding on to this, then that's a price we have to pay, and we are prepared to pay it," he said.

"It is a good job the Advertising Standards Authority was not around when the Old Testament was written, or we would be missing half the Christmas story. The ASA would have wanted Isaiah to substantiate his claim that 'a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son' (Isa 7:14). They would have demanded 'robust, scientific evidence' that virgins can conceive," said Green.

"The prophet's predictions of the fall of Jerusalem and of Christ's crucifixion would have gone the same way. As for nations beating swords into ploughshares, and the wolf dwelling with the lamb, the ASA would have banned him from ever repeating such an unsubstantiated claim," he continued.

"But you don't need to be an Old Testament prophet to see that teenage pregnancy has risen as sex education and the distribution of condoms have gathered pace."

Green also said he wasn't concerned that a complaint about the atheistic ads would prompt further complaints about Christian statements.

"I am sure many of them have complained about Christian advertising already," he said."

Christian Voice describes itself as a ministry for "those Christians who are fed up with the way things are, who have had enough of secularist politicians imposing wickedness on the rest of us and who are not satisfied with trying to get 'Christian influence in a secular world' because they know 'The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof."

Prof calls Christian student 'fascist *******'
Lawsuit filed after speech met with: 'Ask God what your grade is'

A student at Los Angeles City College has filed a lawsuit against the institution after a professor called him a "fascist *******" and told him to "Ask God what your grade is" following the student's speech about morality.

The case has been filed by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Jonathan Lopez after his encounter with Professor John Matteson in a speech class.

The lawsuit alleges Lopez was participating in a class assignment to give a speech on "any topic" from six to eight minutes.

"During the November, 24, 2008 class, Mr. Lopez delivered an informative speech on God and the ways in which Mr. Lopez has seen God act both in his life and in the lives of others through miracles. In the middle of the speech, he addressed the issues of God and morality; thus, he referred to the dictionary definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman and also read a passage from the Bible discussing marriage," the ADF explained.

At that point, the professor interrupted him and refused to allow him to finish his speech, ADF said. Matteson then called Lopez a 'fascist *******" and dismissed the class.

Later, the professor left an evaluation form on Lopez's backpack without a grade, instructing him to "Ask God what your grade is."

The professor also warned on the evaluation form, "proselytizing is inappropriate in public school."

Yet several weeks earlier, Matteson has announced to the class, in connection to the California vote Nov. 4 in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman only, that, "if you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist *******."

A spokeswoman for the school said she had consulted with the school's legal counsel, and since they had just been notified of the case, they would have no comment.

David French, a senior counsel with the ADF, however, was critical of the school's actions.

"Public institutions of higher learning cannot selectively censor Christian speech," he said. "This student was speaking well within the confines of his professor's assignment when he was censored and ultimately threatened with expulsion."

The threat reportedly came when Matteson saw Lopez talking to the college's dean of academic affairs and then said , "he would make sure he'd be expelled from school."

"Professor Matteson clearly violated Mr. Lopez's free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation because he disagreed with the student's religious beliefs," said French. "When students are given open-ended assignments in a public speaking class, the First Amendment protects their ability to express their views. Moreover, the district has a speech code that has created a culture of censorship on campus. America's public universities and colleges are supposed to be a 'marketplace of ideas,' not a hotbed of intolerance."

The ADF earlier had written to academic dean Allison Jones about the case, asking for a resolution.

The letter argued the First Amendment protects religious speech and the government may not suppress speech on public campuses. It also cited the professor's refusal to grade the speech as viewpoint discrimination.

Jones responded that the situation was a concern to the school but told the ADF that two other students also had objected to the content of Lopez' speech. She also said she had started a "progressive discipline" procedure in the case, but because of the "privacy" of the professor, she would not share information about it.

Pastor awaits prison for saying 'Jesus loves you'
Court convicts man for peaceful protest outside abortion clinic

For holding up a poster that reads, "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help you," outside an Oakland abortion clinic, a pastor in California now awaits a judge's sentencing that could send him to prison for harassment.

In May of 2008, Rev. Walter B. Hoye II of the Progressive Missionary Baptist Church of Berkeley, Calif., filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, arguing that an Oakland city ordinance banning counselors or protesters from approaching within eight feet of people entering an abortion clinic is a violation of constitutional free speech rights.

Twelve days later, Hoye was arrested for allegedly violating the law he was seeking to overturn.

Hoye was charged with "unlawful approach" and "harassment."

In court, however, evidence showed that as Hoye stood outside the clinic with his "Jesus loves you" poster, rather than approaching or harassing women seeking to enter the facility, Hoye was hounded by clinic employees in orange jackets called "escorts." The escorts followed Hoye's quiet march along the sidewalk with large blank cards to block the view of his "Jesus loves you" poster.

Court proceedings further discredited clinic employee testimony when hidden camera footage showed their accusations to be highly suspect. The escorts in the case even admitted that Hoye neither threatened nor physically intimidated them.

Dana Cody, executive director of Life Legal Defense Foundation, a non-profit organization composed of attorneys and other concerned citizens committed to the sanctity of human life, told WND that the video tape evidence should have clearly exonerated Hoye of the charges against him.

"I sat in the courtroom when the videotape was shown," Cody told WND. "And pastor Hoye wasn't blocking; he was being blocked. He wasn't harassing, he was being harassed."

Nonetheless, Hoye was found guilty and on Thursday could be sentenced with up to 2 years in prison and a $4,000 fine.

"This is a miscarriage of justice and we will appeal this verdict," said Allison Aranda, an LLDF staff attorney who is representing Hoye. "After speaking with several jurors after the verdict was read, it is clear that the court's failure and outright refusal to instruct the jury regarding the key elements of the crime led to the erroneous conviction of Rev. Hoye."

Witnesses in the trial claimed Hoy harassed and threatened patients, the escorts and even the clinic director.

According to an LLDF statement, clinic director Jackie Barbic testified that she saw Hoye hounding patients and went out to the street to confront him. With a tape measure, Barbic claimed, she demonstrated the distance of the 8-foot barrier, only be physically intimidated by Hoye until she was compelled to defend herself, shouting, "Stay away from me! Back down! Back away!"

Unbeknownst to witnesses and the district attorney, however, an associate of Rev. Hoye had been videotaping him from across the street on both the days on which the pastor was accused of violating the law.

Cody told WND that the video is an accurate representation of Hoye's demeanor, and that while some abortion protesters may scream and threaten, Hoye is not a man to use intimidation or "harassment."

"I have never met a man whose character and demeanor is so perfect for him to stand out in front of these clinics," Cody said. "He is the consummate gentleman. He's not intimidating at all. In fact, on the record there's witness testimony that part of the reason they're afraid of him is that he is so 'nice.'

"The man, he will tell you, 'I am an ambassador for Christ,'" Cody said.

On cross-examination, the court watched the video of two confrontations between Barbic and Hoye on the days in question. According to the LLDF, the video includes the tape measure and Barbic approaching Hoye. The video also showed, however, that the pastor calmly walked away from Barbic and showed no evidence of her fending him off and screaming.

Barbic then testified that the surprise videos must have been taken earlier in the day and that the intimidating confrontation happened later. Hoye's attorneys dismiss the testimony as bogus.

The jury nonetheless convicted Hoye of "unlawful approach."

"We think his conviction," Cody told WND, "was a failure of the judge to give instructions to the jury on what 'approach' meant."

The LLDF now intends to appeal Hoye's case as well as resume his original lawsuit – put on hold during Hoye's trial – within the next few months.

Cody told WND that Hoye filed the original lawsuit because the wording of city's ordinance prohibits even street counseling, a law that goes beyond protecting people from harassment to the point of censoring free speech.

"We live in America," Cody said. "The fact that this can happen because someone has the audacity to stand out on the street and try to help women is just unbelievable to me."

16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
Claim violation of rights as they crossed his land
Jerry Seper
Monday, February 9, 2009

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.

ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.

His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

16 illegals sue Arizona rancher (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/)

Brother Bob,

I can't imagine how horrible it would be owning property in the path of armies of illegals. I would hope this law suit is dismissed immediately and result in huge court costs for whoever filed this ridiculous suit. It's very sad when the government refuses to do their job.

Besides, those filing the charges need to be in jail for being illegal aliens, trespassing, and whatever other charges apply. They have no STANDING to file ANYTHING, and it's a pitiful joke for someone to think they have a right of any kind on this man's property. He shouldn't have to spend any time or money doing what IS THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT. However, MOST OBVIOUSLY, he has the right to protect his family and his property. You are CORRECT - the landowner has ALL OF THE RIGHTS - and the illegals have NONE OF THE RIGHTS. First, they MUST STAY SOUTH OF THE BORDER until they receive LEGAL PERMISSION TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY. Second, they must respect the property rights of others if they do LEGALLY ENTER THIS COUNTRY. OTHERWISE, they must be FORCED to obey the law - END OF STORY!

This private property owner needs to start submitting BILLS for services rendered to the so-called IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES. By the way, I'm not talking about the lower level Officers who are breaking their backs to do the best they can with their manpower and equipment. I'm talking about the higher-ups who need to be charged with dereliction of duty. If there is a reasonable law suit to be filed, it's by the property owner. In the meantime, the property owner should triple his efforts to stop the illegals from trespassing on his land and send the government a bill for every minute of it. All of his other expense should also be submitted (i.e. vehicles, gasoline, ammunition, etc.). Every citizen has the right to make a citizen's arrest for violation of the law in his presence - ESPECIALLY ON HIS OWN PROPERTY! Further , the violators can be held by any reasonable means necessary until the appropriate authorities arrive to take custody of them. The ONLY CHOICES belong to the property owner - NOT THE ILLEGALS AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT!

Counselor suspended after teens hear Christian music
Accused of 'exposing children to unapproved religious activities'

A Southern California counselor with nearly two decades of experience with foster children is challenging a decision that she be punished after four teens she took on an approved day-long outing encountered a beach festival – and heard Christian music.

The 18-year employee, according to the lawsuit, took four teen girls from the Orangewood Children's Home, which was launched as a private facility but now is owned and run by Orange County.

"What happened to this counselor was insane and unjust," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, who is defending the counselor.

"Allowing teenagers to overhear a few minutes of Christian music while at the beach should not result in a six-week suspension," insisted Dacus, who said the counselor's name is not being released.

A county spokeswoman said officials had not seen the complaint. But it was a personnel issue, they said, so there would be no comment.

Pacific Justice said the lawsuit was filed after an extensive course of "administrative remedies" proved fruitless.

The complaint explains the counselor took the four teen girls on the field trip during the summer of 2006, first to a 5 kilometer run and then to the beach.

"At the beach, the group encountered a 'Surf Jam' taking place at the Huntington Beach Pier. The group also overheard Christian music for about 10 minutes while they were eating," the institute said.

After the outing, the counselor was ordered into a "disciplinary meeting" that focused on the inappropriateness of Christian music.

No punishment was imposed immediately, but weeks later after another meeting at which the same subject was reviewed, the counselor was suspended six weeks for "exposing children to unapproved religious activities."

The lawsuit was filed in Orange County Superior Court seeking to recover the financial losses from the suspension and vindicate her constitutional rights, the institute said.

Dacus told WND the circumstances were disturbing.

"It just goes to show how anti-faith some [people] are," he said.

Quote from: Pastor Roger on February 20, 2009, 11:01:55 AM

This is totally ridiculous. This counselor was not promoting any religion, she did not indicate anywhere what her own beliefs are. She simply took them to a beach where someone else had a festival going. I imagine if this had been an immoral San Francisco style festival that nothing would have been said or done about it. This definitely shows how anti-Christian people are becoming. Not only should this woman get her job recovered with backpay plus the ones responsible for this should be looking for a new line of work.

YES - things like this are ridiculous. Nothing would have been said about a gay pride parade, but over-hearing 10 minutes of Christian music is somehow horrible. Law suits like this should also seek MASSIVE PUNITIVE DAMAGES - not just actual damages. This is why the ACLU has so much money, and Christian Defense Agencies need to be funded better. Authorities need to be RADICALLY TRAINED that this is a Christian Nation, and Christians still have rights. Any law or order designed to restrict RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is illegal and Unconstitutional. The only way this can be changed is by a vote of every citizen in the country for a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. In the absence of this, ALL OFFICIALS acting on behalf of the government need to be RUDELY REMINDED that CHRISTIANS HAVE RIGHTS! NOBODY IN THIS COUNTRY HAS RIGHTS UNLESS CHRISTIANS HAVE RIGHTS! The rights for all have a foundation that WAS FOR CHRISTIANS, and it was fought for BY CHRISTIANS! The bottom line is THAT CHRISTIANS FOUGHT AND DIED to establish this country, and they did it FOR CHRISTIANS! The rights of others were derived from Christians and by Christians.

Contrary to the opinion of some, it is COMPLETELY LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL to play Christian music and have Christian Church Services at every City Hall, State, and Federal Building in this country. HINT - HINT - HINT - This is why the things of GOD are plastered all over ALL older PUBLIC BUILDINGS - every one of them. This is also why Church Services WERE HELD in our public buildings for over 200 years. It's a RECENT MYTH AND TWISTED COURTS that contend these things are illegal or Unconstitutional. This MYTH is nothing but LIES and a complete DISTORTION, especially when one looks at COMMON PRACTICE for over 200 years.

The RIGHTS that Christians fought for and ESTABLISHED will NOT be removed. This obviously includes RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, and many OTHER RIGHTS that POLITICIANS CAN'T TOUCH WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE! By the way, much of the government's STEALING from individuals to give to other individuals IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL! The same is TRUE for many other things that the Federal Government is doing today - COMPLETELY ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

Here's a reminder about how this country is supposed to work. First, let's talk about levels of rights and how they mesh together from the top to the bottom:

TOP - FIRST - THE PEOPLE

SECOND - THE STATES

LAST - THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Our government needs a REFRESHER COURSE! In the meantime, the answer of THE PEOPLE IS "NO!!" Criminal Charges need to be filed against MANY of our so-called representatives!!

Senator to 'gay' lawmakers: 'Homosexuality is a sin'
Activists blast state legislator for citing Scripture against same-sex unions

When Colorado's Legislature considered granting benefits to same-sex partners, one lawmaker took a stand, calling homosexuality an "abomination" and a sin the government should not condone – and now "gay" activists have countered with a full-fledged attack.

Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, stood before the state Senate Feb. 23 just before it passed SB 88, a bill granting insurance benefits to homosexual partners of state employees. He read scripture to lawmakers – including the bill's openly "gay" sponsors, Democrats Sen. Jennifer Veiga and Rep. Mark Ferrandino.

"I oppose this bill because of what my personal beliefs are," Renfroe said. "I think that what our country was founded upon was those beliefs also."

He told the Senate God created woman as a helper for man and commanded his children to "be fruitful and multiply."

"I think that goes back to this whole picture of family that God created us for, and we need to honor that," he said firmly. "Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural created order."

Renfroe began reading the book of Leviticus to the Senate.

"Ye shall not lie with a man as one lies with a female. It is an abomination," he read. "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, and they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltness is upon them."

Then he continued with Romans 8:13: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

"That's what we're doing here," Renfroe said. "We are suppressing the truth. The truth is what the family was created for in the beginning – that is a husband, a wife and children. That is why we are here, and this [bill] goes against that."

Renfroe acknowledge that the Bible condemns many sins, and he said the state should not seek to legalize those behaviors.

"Obviously we have sin — we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don't make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal," he said. "I stand in my belief that this is wrong, and we should not condone it as a government."

One of the bill's homosexual sponsors, Sen. Jennifer Veiga, immediately fired back.

"You say, up here at this microphone, that God created us in a certain structure," she said. "I will stand here today and tell you that God also created me. And the last time I checked, I am who I am, people."

Other Republicans also opposed the bill, claiming it was a method of circumventing the voters' 2006 decision to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Critics argue that Colorado cannot afford to pay $116,000 annually for the added benefits when the Legislature may be facing a $1 billion deficit next year.

Nonetheless, the Senate passed the bill on a voice vote and gave it final approval the following day by a margin of 22-12.

But the debate didn't stop there.

Homosexual groups have launched an attack on Sen. Renfroe for opposing the bill and reading scripture aloud. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, issued a statement blasting Renfroe, saying "he compared homosexuality with murder."

"These outrageously offensive comments warrant condemnation by all fair-minded people and should be ignored by the Colorado legislature as they move forward in passing overdue protections to state workers," Solmonese said. "Senator Renfroe shows his own intolerance, but we remain hopeful that his fair-minded colleagues will press ahead and protect hard-working Coloradoans."

According to the Rocky Mountain News blog, some unidentified GOP lawmakers "have privately expressed dismay over Renfroe's comments" as well.

Activist group ProgressNow Colorado launched an e-mail campaign to "Tell Scott Renfroe what you think."

"[R]egardless of how people like James Dobson and Scott Renfroe feel about gay people, their shameless hate-mongering has no place in public debate and we should reject them completely," the website states.

The organization also started a Facebook group called "Reject Renfroe" shortly after the speech became public.

The group now has 176 members who have posted comments including the following:

* Unfortunately if trash comes out of the mouths of politicians and/or preachers they seem to be protected from the law even though they are inciting terrorism, violence, etc.

* On what planet and in what century do you think you are operating? There is no room in this state, this country, and this time in the history of humankind for such hatred and disrespect to exist, much less to be expressed by a "statesman" such as yourself. … Your statements are disgusting and wrong, and it's shameful that you attribute such attitudes to the God that created us ALL – straight, gay, bisexual, transgender,& ?ing alike – in His image. For shame.

* If you are such a higher form of being than the rest of us, I would hope that you choose to resign from representing those of us who are "mere mortals."

AMEN! SENATOR RENFROE OF COLORADO!

I give thanks that you took a stand for the TRUTH! There is nothing mean about doing what's RIGHT!

Senator Renfroe, be happy that the devil doesn't like you. Also, be happy about the Facebook group called "Reject Renfroe". This is evidence that the devil doesn't like you. WORRY ABOUT THINGS WHEN THE DEVIL DOES LIKE YOU! WELL DONE SENATOR RENFROE! You are a Godly man with COURAGE, and you did the right thing! We all have to swim in the SEWER when there is nobody with COURAGE to stand up! Senator Renfroe, it's a kind and loving thing to tell people the TRUTH from GOD'S WORD!

Love In Christ,
Tom

2 Corinthians 4:1-18 NASB Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, 2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; 8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you. 13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE," we also believe, therefore we also speak, 14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God. 16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Right to Publicly Display Ten Commandments

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 26, 2009 - The United States Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a Utah city can display the Ten Commandments in a public park without giving quarter to a different religious viewpoint.

In a landmark 9-0 decision, the Court ruled that the City of Pleasant Grove, Utah, need not accommodate the demands of a small religious sect known as the Summum, who sued the city for rejecting a monument of the religion's "Seven Aphorisms" for display in the same park.

The sect had earlier convinced an appeals court that their free speech was violated by the city council's rejection, which had cited a requirement that park displays be related to city history or be donated by groups with longtime community ties. The Summum were founded in Salt Lake City in 1975.

"It is hard to imagine how a public park could be opened up for the installation of permanent monuments by every person or group wishing to engage in that form of expression," wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the Supreme Court's decision.

The decision to uphold Pleasant Grove's right to display the Commandments could have widespread impact suggest commentators.

"It's a landmark decision that clears the way for government to express its views and its history through the selection of monuments - including religious monuments and displays," said Jay Sekulow, an American Center for Law and Justice attorney who argued for the city.

Some, however, interpreted the ruling as a victory for secularism, against state association with religion. The American Humanist Association stated that the ruling was "just what it needs to pursue the removal of Ten Commandments monuments on public property" because, they argue, such monuments "are unconstitutional government endorsements of religion."

But in a separate published opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the city "ought not fear that today's victory has propelled it from the Free Speech Clause frying pan into the Establishment Clause fire," as "there are very good reasons to be confident that the park displays do not violate any part of the First Amendment.

"The city can safely exhale. Its residents and visitors can now return to enjoying Pioneer Park's wishing well, its historic granary - and, yes, even its Ten Commandments monument - without fear that they are complicit in an establishment of religion," wrote Scalia.

A Boise, Idaho group fighting for the return of a Ten Commandments display that was removed from a city park several years ago, says the ruling confirms their position.

Because the Court vindicated the right of a city to determine which public display to erect, The Keep the Commandments Coalition is calling on Boise to replace a 40-year-old Ten Commandment monument, which was removed from Julia Davis Park in 2004.

"This decision vindicates the Keep the Commandments Coalition and the tens of thousands of people who believed in preserving the public display of the timeless values of the Ten Commandments and protecting a valuable part of Boise's history," stated Brandi Swindell, co-founder of the Coalition.

But Boise officials maintain that the Ten Commandments will remain at St. Michael's Episcopal Church, where it was deposited after the controversy, despite the Supreme Court ruling.

"Over 52 percent of Boise residents voted to keep the monument where it is. The people of Boise have spoken and this issue has been resolved," city spokesman Adam Park said Wednesday.

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Right to Publicly Display Ten Commandments (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022607.html)

State bans prayer at Christian institutions
Policy censoring faithful 'on their own private property' challenged

The Illinois High School Association is being challenged on a policy that bans Christian schools from offering a prayer or any religious message over their public address systems when they host association events on their own property.

"It is blatantly unconstitutional for public school officials to come into private schools and enforce a policy prohibiting them from expressing what's central to their religious beliefs," said David Cortman, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, or ADF.

The ADF wrote this week to association chief Marty Hickman after several private schools complained about the new restrictions. WND left a message with Hickman seeking comment, but the call was not returned today.

"In enacting the policy, the IHSA was purportedly concerned that allowing private host schools to conduct customary pre-game prayers violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," the letter said.

But the ADF reassured the assocation that the prayers are constitutional.

"To underscore this point, ADF makes the following offer: should the IHSA choose to rescind its new policy and go back to its neutral stance regarding the messages broadcast by private host schools over their public address systems, and a lawsuit is subsequently filed against the IHSA alleging an Establishment Clause violation, ADF would be willing to defend the IHSA free of charge in that lawsuit," said Cortman's letter.

However, if the policy is not rescinded, there also could be complications, the letter said.

"There is a strong likelihood that the IHSA's new policy violates the First Amendment rights of private Christian schools that host IHSA state series events," the letter said. "For this reason alone, and to avoid potentially needless litigation and a subsequent award of attorneys' fees, the IHSA should immediately rescind its new policy and continue to allow private host schools to conduct events as they have for years," Cortman said.

The ADF said the IHSA reportedly got "a few complaints from people who didn't like the prayers and religious announcements at the private schools," then came up with the new rule that prohibits "all prayer or religious messages" – even at private and Christian schools.

The letter explained there would be no possibility of a reasonable person thinking that a practice at an individual private school somehow was IHSA's attempt to establish religion.

"Directing where event attendees park their vehicles and sit in the stands, choosing who gets to sing the national anthem, promoting good sportsmanship and civility amongst participants and fans, providing concessions stands for food and refreshments – and yes, even what types of message are broadcast on the public address system before, during, and after games – these things are all part of how a particular school hosts an event conducted at its own facilities and on its own property," the letter said.

"Only an unreasonable and uninformed observer would take offense at a pre-game prayer at a private school that occurs as part of that school's customary procedures with no oversight by the IHSA," it continued.

"In fact, what the IHSA should be concerned about under these facts is not the appearance of impermissible endorsement, but rather that a reasonable observer would likely perceive hostility toward the religious speech and practices of private host schools," Cortman wrote. "You must keep in mind that Establishment Clause jurisprudence requires neutrality and forbids hostility toward religion."

Further, such bans on religious speech cannot be supported legally, ADF said.

"Even though private schools have well-settled constitutional free speech rights to express their religious mission and beliefs, the IHSA chooses to discriminate against these schools on the basis of the content and viewpoint of their speech by banning their prayer and religious messages. This is clearly at odds with established Supreme Court precedent," Cortman said.

Alarming Attempt to Muzzle Catholic Church in Connecticut

According to the American TFP, same-sex "marriage" advocates and dissident Catholics are joining forces in Connecticut to usurp the authority of Catholic bishops and pastors.

In fact, experts in constitutional law as well as fair-minded Americans are alarmed by Senate Bill 1098 which singles out the Catholic Church. Introduced in the Connecticut General Assembly in early March, the bill repeals elements of present Connecticut law (Section 33-279) that respect the Church's hierarchical form of government.

Most Rev. William E. Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport, points out on the diocesan website: "This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes."

Connecticut State Senator Michael McLachlan said: "The real purpose of this bill is payback to the bishops and pastors of the Roman Catholic Church in Connecticut for opposing gay marriage."

TFP vice-president John Horvat calls attention to the fact that: "Both co-chairs of the Committee sponsoring the bill, Sen. Andrew J. McDonald (D) and Rep. Michael P. Lawlor (D) support same-sex 'marriage.' It is also telling that the bill mandates changes in the Catholic Church desired by liberal dissident groups such as Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (ARCC) and Voice of the Faithful."

"By usurping the right of the Church to decide how to structure itself under civil law for purposes of property ownership and the administration of parishes and other corporations, those in favor of SB 1098 join the same band of despots and soviets who threatened Her freedom over the centuries," he continued.

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (www.tfp.org) calls on all Americans to repudiate and protest Connecticut's SB 1098 and to be vigilant against similar measures in other states.

Policy discriminating against Bible clubs challenged
Supreme Court asked whether Equal Access Act can be 'circumvented'

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether school officials at Kentridge High School near Seattle can circumvent the requirements of the Equal Access Act by denying religious student groups the rights afforded other organizations.

The appeal has been submitted by the Alliance Defense Fund in a case that began in 2001 when school officials refused to grant recognition to the Truth Bible Club, because the club proposed that members must share a belief in the Bible.

"Christian student groups shouldn't be penalized for their beliefs," said Nate Kellum, a senior counsel for the ADF. "Excluding a club simply because its members are religious is a clear violation of their First Amendment rights and the Equal Access Act.

"For close to a decade, school officials have stonewalled this group that only wants to have the same benefits and privileges as any other student-led group. We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will bring an end to this discrimination once and for all," he said.

The members of the Truth Bible Club wish to limit the club's voting membership to Christians, but because of the faith-based decision, Kentridge officials repeatedly have rejected the application, citing the school's "nondiscrimination" policy.

Officials also said the name of the club is "offensive."

However, the school has recognized other non-curriculum-related clubs whose members hold particular beliefs, the ADF noted.

Students Sarice Undis and Julianne Stewart submitted a club charter application in September 2001, but school officials put them off, telling them to apply again in 2003. Multiple denials were issue because of the club's "membership policies."

A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the school's decision to treat a religious club differently from other student organizations, the ADF said.

WND reported as part of the long-running case, the ACLU, which argued the Equal Access Act demanded recognition of a student homosexual group, suddenly reversed its position when the precedent could have been cited in support of the Bible club.

The ADF had noted that in the case Prince v. Jacoby, the 9th Circuit held that denying official sponsorship of a club violates the Equal Access Act. ADF pointed out that in 2003, shortly after Prince v. Jacoby was decided, the ACLU sent an information letter to school officials in Washington state explaining the case "makes it clear that student clubs promoting tolerance for gay students are entitled to the same resources as other clubs."

But in the Bible club case, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief that took the opposite position.

"This goes to show how far the ACLU will manipulate the legal system to further their radical agenda," said the ADF's Tim Chandler, a litigation specialist working on the case, at the time.

The 9th Circuit ruling concluded other student clubs may require members to share the clubs' beliefs but held that Christian clubs are not allowed to do the same.

Chandler called that the first federal appellate court ruling allowing high schools to specifically target Bible clubs for exclusion from their campuses.

For the Supreme Court, the ADF said the question is, "Did the 9th Circuit err in holding, in conflict with decisions of this Court and the 2nd Circuit, that schools could circumvent the basic protections of the Equal Access Act by excluding religious groups?"

The controlling law is clear, the ADF said.

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that '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,'" the ADF said.

The Kentridge campus promotes non-curriculum clubs including the Gay-Straight Alliance, Girl's Honor, Men's Honor, Key Club, Multicultural Student Union, Future Business Leaders of America, National Honor Society, Snowriders and Earth Corps, the petition said.

Although meetings would be open to all, Bible club organizers want voting members and leaders to sign a statement of faith, stating their belief "the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God."

The Key Club already required members to be "interested in service, qualified scholastically, of good character, possession leadership potential." Earth Corps requires members to have an "interest and dedication toward environmental issues." And the Gay-Straight Alliance demands members "must be willing to work toward the goals of the club," including "working to decrease homophobia," the petition notes.

The ADF said the Equal Access Act specifically makes it "unlawful for any public secondary school which receives federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings."

The 9th Circuit said the measure included an exemption for school districts to discriminate against religious student organizations, the ADF said.

Suit claims recognition of God violates law
Brief challenges plan to stop acknowledging prayer

A court should reject arguments from those who seek "relentless extirpation" of any reference to religion in public life, according to a brief submitted in opposition to a Wisconsin lawsuit that challenges the National Day of Prayer.

The lawsuit was filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which asserted the law that sets the first Thursday in May as "National Day of Prayer" should be declared in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The case pending in a Wisconsin court now, however, has drawn the attention of the American Center for Law and Justice, the ACLJ, which submitted a friend-of-the-court brief asking for the case to be dismissed.

The ACLJ's filing includes a list 60 pages long of presidential and other proclamations recognizing America's need for a "day of prayer" and said the concept was adopted even as the U.S. was being created as a nation.

"At the end of the years 1777, 1781 and 1782 the Continental Congress recommended that the states set apart a day for prayer and thanksgiving. At the Constitutional Convention itself, Benjamin Franklin urged that 'prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business," the ACLJ argued.

It was George Washington who offered the first presidential proclamation urging a "day of public thanksgiving and prayer." He said "it is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experience," the filing argued.

"This is another twisted legal attempt to remove prayer from public life," said the ACLJ's director, Jay Sekulow. "The fact is that a day set aside for prayer for the country is a time-honored tradition woven into the very fabric of our nation.

"From the time of our Founding Fathers to the present day, such proclamations and observances reflects the nation's rich history. The courts have been clear on this issue: there is no constitutional crisis here. We're hopeful that the court will take the only action appropriate in this case and dismiss this lawsuit," he said.

The brief said the U.S. Supreme Court already has addressed the dispute, too.

"In 'Marsh v. Chambers,' the United States Supreme Court conducted a searching examination of the nation's history when considering a challenge to the Nebraska state legislature's practice of opening its session with prayer by a paid chaplain. Upholding the practice, the court held that 'historical evidence sheds light not only on what the draftsmen intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the practice authorized by the First Congress – their actions reveal their intent.'"

In its brief filed with the court in Madison, Wis., the ACLJ represents itself and 31 members of the 111th Congress, including Rep. J. Randy Forbes, R-Va., who chairs the Congressional Prayer Caucus.

Other members of Congress represented are Robert B. Aderholt, Michele Bachmann, Roscoe G. Bartlett, John A. Boehner, John Boozman, Eric Cantor, K. Michael Conaway, Mary Fallin, Virginia Foxx, Trent Franks, Scott Garrett, Louie Gohmert, Wally Herger, Peter Hoekstra, Walter B. Jones, Jim Jordan, Doug Lamborn, Thaddeus G. McCotter, Patrick T. McHenry, Mike McIntyre, Jeff Miller, Sue Wilkins Myrick, Randy Neugebauer, Pete Olson, Mike Pence, Joseph R. Pitts, Heath Shuler, Adrian Smith, Lamar Smith and Joe Wilson.

"Even the drafter of the First Amendment, James Madison, issued four proclamations in the early 1800's calling the nation to a day of prayer," the ACLJ noted.

The ACLJ contends that the "strategy to purge all religious observances and references from American public life must not be indulged."

The ACLJ's brief can be read here.

WND columnist Jonathan Falwell addressed the concerns in a column.

"The problem with this lawsuit, as I see it, is that America has a rich history of honoring God. From our nation's very first inaugural address by George Washington – in which he requested that the Bible be opened to Deuteronomy chapter 28 – we see the tradition of publicly paying tribute to God," he wrote.

"George Washington understood that this nation is a gift from the Sovereign God, and he recognized the need for the nation to honor Him. 'It is the duty of all nations,' Washington said, 'to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God and to obey His will,'" Falwell wrote.

"We must fight to preserve our history, my friends, because there are those who want to ignore and destroy it," he said.

Expulsion threatened over prayer for sick teacher
Students' lawsuit against College of Alameda moves forward

Attorneys representing two students who have been threatened with expulsion by a California college because of a prayer for a sick professor say a federal judge has refused the school's efforts to have the case dismissed.

"It's outrageous," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working on the case brought by students Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga of the College of Alameda in Alameda, near Oakland.

"Since when does praying for a sick teacher to get well – with her consent – earn a suspension? This is not just a constitutional violation; it is a complete lack of common sense. These students were not looking for a fight, but since the school to this day insists that it can expel them if they pray again, we will have to resolve it in federal court," he said.

The public-interest legal group said the decision by a San Francisco federal judge means the lawsuit will move forward.

The case was prompted by an incident just before Christmas in 2007 in which the students went to deliver a Christmas gift to a professor.

"Kandy found the instructor alone in her shared office," according to Pacific Justice. "When the instructor indicated she was ill, Kandy offered to pray for her. The instructor bowed her head, and Kandy began to pray – until she was interrupted by another faculty member, Derek Piazza, who walked in and said, 'You can't be doing that in here!' Kandy quickly left and rejoined her friend and fellow student, Ojoma Omaga. Piazza followed Kandy outside and repeated his rebuke."

While the students reported they were surprised by the teacher's aggressive behavior, they were stunned when, days later, they both got letters notifying them of the college's retroactive "intent to suspend" plan.

The letters, however, provided no facts on which to make such a threat, listing only vague references to "disruptive or insulting behavior" and "willful disobedience."

School officials informed them during administrative hearings that Kyriacou was being disciplined for praying for the sick teacher. Omaga was not part of the prayer, and her offense apparently was that she was with Kyriacou a short time later.

The lawsuit was filed when the college refused to rescind the letters, leaving the students in peril of suspension or expulsion for any other offense, such as praying on campus. The decision from U.S. District Judge Susan Illston turned back college attempts to deny the students a hearing on their complaint.

"To this day, the College of Alameda has never provided a real explanation for its threats to expel these students," said Steven N.H. Wood of the Walnut Creek firm of Bergquist, Wood and Anderson, which is working with Pacific Justice on the case.

"But it has disciplined them for non-disruptive, private prayer between consenting adults. We will not stand by and let a college trample these fundamental rights," he said.

Said Dacus, "It is alarming that a publicly-funded college would seek to suspend and expel students for praying on campus, then dig in its heels to defend an untenable, unconstitutional position. We are encouraged that the federal court has given us the green light to pursue this case."

Quote from: Pastor Roger on April 10, 2009, 10:40:28 AM

This college doesn't have an explanation - JUST AN ATTEMPT TO TRAMPLE CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! This matter and all like it need to be pursued to the limits of the law. This involves OUR RIGHTS UNDER GOD that can't be taken away AND WON'T BE! Illegal and Unconstitutional actions like this need to be DEFIED IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE MANNER! We must SAY NO to the devil and tell the devil that we won't be silenced! WE'VE ALREADY FOUGHT, BLED, AND DIED TO OBTAIN AND PRESERVE THESE RIGHTS, AND THEY WON'T BE TAKEN AWAY! Maybe we should start using EVERY occasion like this to REBUKE the devil in PUBLIC WAYS MOST DEFINITELY IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST - THE NAME that the devil hates the worst!

By the way, people like Obama stating this isn't a Christian nation means less than NOTHING! Obama is simply a temporary embarrassment to GOD! GOD will humble and subject Obama and all like him at HIS Appointed Time! I, for one, am ready for that time and look forward to it! In the BIG PICTURE of the ONLY TRUTH, it really doesn't matter what the world does! GOD WILL SUBJECT ALL AND TAKE WHAT IS HIS AT HIS APPOINTED TIME! THOSE WHO HAVE REJECTED AND MOCKED GOD WILL BE CRUSHED AND RESERVED FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IN THE FIRES OF HELL! As an individual Christian, I believe that time draws nearer by the minute!

Home: No place
for Bible study
County demands pastor obtain
$10,000 permit to host friends

A San Diego pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a county official and warned they will face escalating fines if they continue to hold Bible studies in their home.

The couple, whose names are being withheld until a demand letter can be filed on their behalf, told their attorney a county government employee knocked on their door on Good Friday, asking a litany of questions about their Tuesday night Bible studies, which are attended by approximately 15 people.

"Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say 'amen'?" the official reportedly asked. "Do you say, 'Praise the Lord'?"

The pastor's wife answered yes.

She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding "religious assemblies" until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.

And if they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple will be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, "and then it will get ugly."

Dean Broyles of the Western Center for Law & Policy, which has been retained to represent the couple, told WND the county's action not only violates religious land-use laws but also assaults both the First Amendment's freedom of assembly and freedom of religion.

"The First Amendment, in part, reads, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'" Broyles said. "And that's the key part: 'prohibiting the free exercise.' We believe this is a substantial government burden on the free exercise of religion."

He continued, "If one's home is one's castle, certainly you would the think the free exercise of religion, of all places, could occur in the home."

Broyles confirmed the county official followed through on his threat. The pastor and his wife received a written warning ordering the couple to "cease/stop religious assembly on parcel or obtain a major use permit."

"The Western Center for Law and Policy is troubled by this draconian move to suppress home Bible studies," said the law center in a statement. "If the current trends in our nation continue, churches may be forced underground. If that happens, believers will once again be forced to meet in homes. If homes are already closed by the government to assembly and worship, where then will Christians meet?"

On a personal note, Broyles added, "I've been leading Bible studies in my home for 13 years in San Diego County, and I personally believe that home fellowship Bible studies are the past and future of the church. … If you look at China, the church grew from home Bible studies. I'm deeply concerned that if in the U.S. we are not able to meet in our homes and freely practice our religion, then we may be worse off than China."

Broyles also explained to WND that oppressive governments, such as communist China or Nazi Germany, worked to repress home fellowships, labeling them the "underground church" or "subversive groups," legally compelling Christians to meet only in sanctioned, government-controlled "official" churches.

"Therein lies my concern," Broyles said. "If people can't practice their religious beliefs in the privacy of their own homes with a few of their friends, that's an egregious First Amendment violation."

WND contacted a spokeswoman for San Diego County, who acknowledged the description of the incident seemed "bizarre," but who was unable to locate the details of the account. She simply could not provide comment yet, she said, until she could become familiar with the case.

Broyles said the WCLP is nearly ready to file a demand letter with the county to release the pastor and his wife from the requirement to obtain the expensive permit. If the county refuses, Broyles said, the WCLP will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

Broyles also told WND the pastor and his wife are continuing to hold the Bible study in their home.

City corrals Christians at weekend Arab fest
Judge won't let ministry deliver tracts on sidewalks

A federal judge has upheld a decision by festival organizers in Dearborn, Mich., which is about 30 percent Muslim, to ban a Christian ministry from handing out religious information on public sidewalks.

The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmonds and affects this weekend's celebration but will not affect the free speech lawsuit over the event, filed by the Thomas More Law Center and the Becker Law Firm.

The case is being brought on behalf of the Arabic Christian Perspective, a Christian group that ministers to Muslims. According to the Thomas More Law Center, Pastor George Saieg and scores of his volunteers have visited Dearborn for the city's Arab International Festival to hand out religious information several times.

At estimated 30,000 of Dearborn's nearly 100,000 residents are Muslim.

While there never has been a disruption of the public peace during the five years the ministry has been attending, this year Dearborn police warned Saieg he and his group would not be allowed to walk the public sidewalks to hand out information and instead would be confined to a specific spot, the lawsuit said.

After negotiations in Dearborn failed to restore the Christians' rights, the lawsuit was filed.

"It's ironic that while Americans are applauding the free speech exercised by hundreds of thousands of Muslims on the streets of Iran, the city of Dearborn is restricting free speech rights Christians are attempting to exercise on the city's public sidewalks," said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center.

"This case involves an important constitutional question regarding the government's ability to prohibit peaceful speech activities," said Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who argued for the Christians' rights before Edmonds.

"This preliminary ruling, while disappointing, will not affect the remainder of the case. We intend to pursue this as far as necessary," he said.

Mary Landroche, director of the city's department of public information, said the judge's ruling agreed the city had the right to establish rules for maintaining order.

"[She] did agree with the city we have an interest in controlling the crowds," Landroche told WND. She said the city's rules are "content-neutral," but she could not provide information about any other group impacted by the change.

But she said the city decided the public sidewalks are "part of the festival grounds."

Fay Beydoun of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn told the Detroit News there was "no problem" with the Christians being at the event, "but we do have to think about the safety of everyone."

The complaint said public streets are properly considered a traditional public forum.

"The Supreme Court has emphasized that the streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion; and one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression inappropriately abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place," the complaint said.

The complaints cited a police statement that the Christians would be classified among "political parties and protesters," and would be limited to a single location.

Pentagon Refuses Military FlyOver: Christianity the Problem

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

An organization in Idaho filed for permits for a military flyover, as they have done for 42 years. For 42 years the request was approved. In The Time of Obama, however, the Pentagon denied the God and Country Family Festival their ceremonial flyover.

Nampa, Idaho’s 43rd Annual Treasure Valley God and Country Festival applied for the FAA permit, which was approved. The next step was the Pentagon application, which was denied. The denial came because the event was “Christian in nature,” said the Pentagon, according to Reverend Patrick Mahoney on FOX News this morning, with Gretchen Carlson.

Spokespersons for the God and Country Family Festival say while their organization is definitely “Christian in nature,” but the flyover is a tribute “to the military and the freedoms that they stand for.

Quote

…we’re honoring the military when we do that flyover, and that’s why we do it. I think they made a bad decision.

Pam Baldwin, the executive director of The Interfaith Alliance of Idaho weighed in:

Quote

Everything is not about whether folks are Jews or Christians or Muslims,” she said. “If people are saying that, they’re probably looking for media attention or looking to disparage other faiths.”Baldwin questioned whether a flyover of the event would have been a prudent use of public resources, especially in light of the deep recession.

You know America, we must deal with this issue. The Constitution guarantees all Americans the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Non-believers and believers in other faiths are not free to take Christianity from us, or free to remove or deny the Christian principals that were integral to the founding of the United States and all of the history that brings us to today.

The mountain of evidence cannot be shoved under the rug, or worse yet, be overturned (amended) within our founding documents unless we allow it. This is not the time and place to reiterate such evidence, but perhaps we should define just what being a Christian nation means, since President Obama has denied our Christianity as he has traveled around the world. I’ll quote a Supreme Court justice from the best essay I have found on America’s “Christian nature.” The quote from WallBuilders http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909 is just a snippet of the documentation. I urge you to read the entire article, bookmark it for future reference and quote from it often:

Quote

Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 8
So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” 9

Back to the Treasure Valley God and Country Family Festival, no doubt we will begin hearing that the Pentagon doesn’t have the funds for the flyovers. Since Pentagon flyovers are always intended to salute our military and patriotism, and are usually accompanied by the National Anthem, I suggest we pull all the pork necessary from earmarks out of the budget and the stimulus to fund legitimate flyovers. Or cancel the Obama’s Wednesday night cocktail parties.

Quote

Pentagon Refuses Military FlyOver: Christianity the Problem

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

This is more sickening BALONEY, and this is the nicest thing I can say right now.

Psalms 33:1-22 ASV Rejoice in Jehovah, O ye righteous: Praise is comely for the upright. 2 Give thanks unto Jehovah with the harp: Sing praises unto him with the psaltery of ten strings. 3 Sing unto him a new song; Play skilfully with a loud noise. 4 For the word of Jehovah is right; And all his work is done in faithfulness. 5 He loveth righteousness and justice: The earth is full of the lovingkindness of Jehovah. 6 By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap: He layeth up the deeps in store-houses. 8 Let all the earth fear Jehovah: Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10 Jehovah bringeth the counsel of the nations to nought; He maketh the thoughts of the peoples to be of no effect. 11 The counsel of Jehovah standeth fast for ever, The thoughts of his heart to all generations. 12 Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah, The people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. 13 Jehovah looketh from heaven; He beholdeth all the sons of men; 14 From the place of his habitation he looketh forth Upon all the inhabitants of the earth, 15 He that fashioneth the hearts of them all, That considereth all their works. 16 There is no king saved by the multitude of a host: A mighty man is not delivered by great strength. 17 A horse is a vain thing for safety; Neither doth he deliver any by his great power. 18 Behold, the eye of Jehovah is upon them that fear him, Upon them that hope in his lovingkindness; 19 To deliver their soul from death, And to keep them alive in famine. 20 Our soul hath waited for Jehovah: He is our help and our shield. 21 For our heart shall rejoice in him, Because we have trusted in his holy name. 22 Let thy lovingkindness, O Jehovah, be upon us, According as we have hoped in thee.

There are a few positive moments in this life still.

Homosexclamation! Christian student fights prof, wins big
Judge rules college can't censor religious speech for being 'offensive'

A California court has ruled in favor of a student who was insulted for defending traditional marriage and has ordered the college to strike from its website a sexual harassment policy that censors speech deemed "offensive" to homosexual people.

As WND reported, Jonathan Lopez, a student at Los Angeles City College, was delivering a speech on his Christian faith in speech class when professor John Matteson interrupted him, called him a "fascist b----rd" for mentioning a moral conviction against homosexual marriage and later told him to "ask God what your grade is."

The professor also warned on his evaluation of Lopez's speech, "Proselytizing is inappropriate in public school," and later threatened to have Lopez expelled.

Represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, Lopez sued the Los Angeles City College District, the largest community college system in the U.S., with over 135,000 students.

The lawsuit not only targeted the school over the professor's comments, however, but also sought removal of a campus sexual harassment and speech policy that court documents allege "systematically prohibits and punishes political and religious speech by students that is outside the campus political mainstream."

ADF claims the district's policy, which labels speech as sexual harassment whenever it might be "perceived as offensive or unwelcome" – such as Lopez's opinions on sexual morality – opens the door for Christians and defenders of traditional marriage to suffer abuses similar to the type Lopez endured.

"Professor Matteson clearly violated Mr. Lopez's free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation because he disagreed with the student's religious beliefs," said ADF Senior Counsel David French in a statement. "Moreover, the district has a speech code that has created a culture of censorship on campus. America's public universities and colleges are supposed to be a 'marketplace of ideas,' not a hotbed of intolerance."

In a ruling handed down last week, U.S. District Judge George H. King apparently agreed, calling the campus policy "unconstitutionally overbroad" and ordering it to be stricken from the college's website.

The lawsuit alleges Lopez was participating in a class assignment to give a speech on "any topic" from six to eight minutes.

"During the November, 24, 2008 class, Mr. Lopez delivered an informative speech on God and the ways in which Mr. Lopez has seen God act both in his life and in the lives of others through miracles," ADF explained in a statement. "In the middle of the speech, he addressed the issues of God and morality; thus, he referred to the dictionary definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman and also read a passage from the Bible discussing marriage."

Those comments led to the outburst from the professor, who canceled the remaining class period and mocked Lopez's faith on his grading review.

Even though college administrators informed ADF that a "progressive discipline" procedure had been started in the case, ADF filed for a preliminary injunction that would require the school to remove the sexual harassment policy from its website.

According to court documents, the district's website sexual harassment policy stated, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. ... Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome."

Judge King, however, ruled, "By using subjective words such as 'hostile' and 'offensive,' the policy is so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech."

He further quoted court precedent, stating, "'It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.'"

"Thus," the ruling concluded, "the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. Indeed, the LACC's website indicates that sexual harassment can include 'sexist statements ... or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men.' This could include an individual's outdated, though protected, opinions on the proper role of the genders. While it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment. Thus, the policy is unconstitutionally overbroad."

The judge then granted ADF's request for a preliminary injunction, suggesting Lopez was likely to win his case and that the posted policy was likely to cause irreparable harm should it be left in place. He ordered the college district to remove the policy within two weeks.

"Christian students shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs at a public college," commented French on the judge's decision. "We are pleased that the court has taken this step to ensure that the First Amendment rights of students are not violated. We will continue to litigate this case to make sure the constitutional rights of our client and other students at the college are protected."

Bible banishment by court overturned
Appeals judges approve policy of equal treatment for all materials

A ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Perry that singled out the Bible as an "instrument of religion" and banned its distribution in a school has been overturned by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case, which has been developing for several years, concerned the activities of the South Iron School District in Missouri, which for years had allowed members of the Gideons to hand out Bibles to fifth-graders.

When the practice was challenged, the board adopted a new neutral policy requiring anyone wishing to hand out materials to submit them to the school for approval. It specifically banished materials in several categories such as commercial advertisements and documents that promote illegal actions. It also provided for an appeal process.

"Under this policy, an outside group may offer Bibles to students who wish to take them in the same manner as other nonreligious groups are permitted to distribute secular literature," explained Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mathew Staver, who argued the case before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

However, opponents of the school's policy continued their protest, and Perry issued a permanent injunction banning the distribution of Bibles in classrooms and also condemned the school's new policy.

Her decision said the neutral treatment policy toward handouts was unacceptable, because it would allow actual distribution of Bibles.

Her ruling, according to Liberty Counsel, "presented a novel (and unconstitutional) theory that a private third party (like the ACLU) must have the opportunity to veto the distribution request of the private applicant."

The veto power, the judge wrote, must be provided to veto religious, but not secular, literature, the law firm said.

Staver said the Constitution simply doesn't allow the Bible to be singled out, like contraband, for special penalties.

"How ironic that in America, until recent times, the Bible formed the basis of education, and now its mere presence is radioactive in the opinion of some judges," he said when he argued the appeal. "The founders never envisioned such open hostility toward the Christian religion as we see today in some venues. To single out the Bible alone for discriminatory treatment harkens back to the Dark Ages. America deserves better. Our Constitution should be respected, not disregarded."

But the 8th Circuit decision, which continued a ban on handing out Bibles to students in classrooms, said they could be distributed on the same basis as other handouts.

"Opening the school for expressive conduct to community and student groups serves the secular purpose of providing a forum for an exchange of ideas and social intercourse," said the opinion.

"We know of no case holding that the creation of a limited public forum was not a secular purpose satisfying [the law]," the judges continued.

The case originated in 2006 when the American Civil Liberties Union sued to stop the Gideons from handing out Bibles. Under the newest court decision, those now can be handed out – just like other materials – from several specific locations in the school.

"We are pleased that the new equal access policy can finally go into effect," said Staver. "The Founders never envisioned open hostility toward religious viewpoints."

The appeals court decision said the lower court decision would have precluded the school "from ever creating a limited public forum in which religious materials may be distributed in a constitutional neutral manner."

Instead, the ruling found, "school officials must remain free to experiment in good faith with new policies to accommodate the tensions between educational objectives … private rights under the Free Exercise Clause, and … the Establishment Clause."

Staver told WND that under the orders from the district court decision, "The Quran is OK, and other kinds of religious texts; just not the Bible. The Bible alone is impermissible in the public school."

Among the groups that have distributed material at the school are the Army Corps of Engineers, Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Iron County Health Department, Missouri Water Patrol, Missouri Highland Healthcare and Union Pacific Railroad, officials said.

"The ACLU might not like the fact that equal access also means equal treatment for religious speech, but the Constitution requires equal treatment," Staver said. "The First Amendment protects private religious viewpoints. Hecklers may heckle but they may not veto private religious speech. ... Religious viewpoints have constitutional protection."

The appeals court opinion said, "The district court wholly ignored the proper initial inquiry, whether the text of the new policy evidences an unconstitutional purpose."

The Gideons, a group founded in the late 1800s, have as their "sole purpose" the goal "to win men, women, boys and girls to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ through association for service, personal testimony, and distributing the Bible in the human traffic lanes and streams of everyday life."

Gideons have placed the Bible in 181 nations in 82 different languages.

The organization focuses on hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, colleges, universities, the military, law enforcement, prisons and jails.

"The demand for Scriptures in these areas far exceeds our supplies that we are able to purchase through our donations," the group said. "Much more could be done – if funds were available. However, we are placing and distributing more than one million copies of the Word of God, at no cost, every seven days."

The Gideons International is the oldest Christian business and professional men's association in the U.S.

Dozens of pastors
challenge IRS rules
'We need the government
to get out of the pulpit'

Dozens of pastors around the nation are challenging an Internal Revenue Service rule that anti-Christian activists often invoke when they want to silence the message of churches, according to the Alliance Defense Fund.

The organization has announced that more than 80 preachers are taking part in its second annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday this weekend.

The pastors will preach Sunday sermons related to biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates or current government officials, exercising their constitutional right to free religious expression, the ADF said.

They will do so despite a "problematic" IRS rule that activists use when they want to silence the message of Christians, the ADF said.

"Pastors have a right to speak about biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights," ADF senior legal counsel Erik Stanley explained.

"ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit. On the contrary, the whole point is that churches should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to talk about. The IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church's tax-exempt status. We need the government to get out of the pulpit," he said.

The censorship for church pastors has been in place since the Johnson Amendment was added to the Federal Tax Code in 1954. However, enforcement has been spotty and the results have been vague, even though critics of Christian churches contend it limits what they can say from the pulpit.

The IRS has repeatedly launched investigations of churches based on allegations from organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, whose officials have taken advantage of the vagueness to report church "offenses."

Stanley explained that, contrary to the misunderstandings of many, tax-exempt status is not a "gift" or "subsidy" from the government.

"Churches were completely free to preach about candidates from the day that the Constitution was ratified in 1788 until 1954," explained Stanley. "The real effect of the Johnson Amendment is that pastors are muzzled for fear of investigation by the IRS. Rather than risk confrontation, many pastors have self-censored their speech, afraid to be critical of blatant immorality in government and foregoing opportunities to praise moral government leaders. The participants in Pulpit Freedom Sunday refuse to be intimidated into sacrificing their First Amendment rights."

The Pulpit Initiative is a strategic litigation plan which, through lawsuits, is intended to restore the right of every pastor to speak scriptural truth from the pulpit about moral, social and government issues.

WND reported just weeks ago when the IRS closed an investigation into a Minnesota pastor's sermons from just before the 2008 election that addressed the moral qualifications of the political candidates.

According to a letter posted online by the ADF, the Dallas, Texas, office of the IRS notified Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn., the review was being closed.

"The IRS may commence a future inquiry to address the concerns described … after it resolves [a] procedural issue," said the letter, signed by Sunita B. Lough.

The ADF said Pastor Gus Booth had preached on moral issues as a part of the Alliance Defense Fund's Pulpit Initiative last year.

"Booth originally sent the IRS a copy of a sermon he preached in May 2008 with regard to the primary elections. After participating in the Pulpit Initiative's Pulpit Freedom Sunday Sept. 28, Booth also sent the agency his sermon regarding the general election. After launching an audit of the church in August 2008, the IRS has now stated in a letter that it is closing its examination of the sermons due to a procedural problem," the ADF said.

Stanley said it was an example of the IRS applying pressure to churches but refusing to let a case come to court where a ruling could be made.

"Instead of standing and fighting in court, the IRS prefers to run the other way," said Stanley. "ADF would likely have waived any complaint about procedural concerns involved in the investigation stage of the audit in order to reach the merits of the case and clarify the law. Once a federal court has an opportunity to review the Johnson Amendment, we believe it will not take long for the court to strike it down as unconstitutional. Pastors have the right to preach from their pulpits on all issues, including candidates and elections. No pastor should fear the IRS."

WND reported earlier when the IRS said it was dropping a two-year investigation into another church – this one in Kansas – over similar issues.

As WND reported, Wichita, Kan., Pastor Mark Holick's church, Spirit One Christian Center, was targeted by the IRS in April 2007 for "engaging in political activities."

One of his messages said, then-Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius "accepted $100,000 from abortionist (George) Tiller, price of 1,000 babies." A separate posting repeated President Obama's statement from a campaign speech about sex education: "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby."

The notice Holick received from the IRS warned him about putting his Christian beliefs on the sign, and he responded that he would continue to preach the Word of God.

He explained the signs "are spiritual messages that communicate God's truth or are directly related to messages in the Bible." He also provided the IRS with a list of dozens of biblical instructions, including "to lift up Jesus, to rebuke sin, to save babies, to be honest, to take a righteous stand."

Unfortunately many think that this has been a ruling since the beginning of the IRS and others go even further thinking it is part of the Constitution. Both are wrong. The following is a little of the hisory of the Johnson Amendment.

The History of The Johnson Amendment of 1954

And

House Resolution 235

Compiled and edited by Kasey Kelly

February 4, 2005

Calvary Christian School - Mr. Garrisons Current Events Class

The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,…."

The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act

House Resolution 235 was designed to revise the IRS code to remove restrictions placed on churches and non-profit organizations in 1954 by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson. Prior to 1954, churches and non-profit organizations had no such restrictions on their freedom of speech or their right to speak out in favor or against political issues or candidates.

The history of Johnson’s IRS gag order is instructive. It began with what some historians believe to be a fraudulent election of Johnson to the Senate in 1948. It has been maintained by both conservative and liberal historians that Lyndon Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948 was won by massive voter fraud. Known as “Landslide Lyndon,” this aspiring politician was “elected” by only 87 votes. His challenger, Coke Stevenson, challenged his election and presented credible evidence that hundreds of votes for Johnson had been faked. Johnson, however, was successful in blocking Stevenson’s effort by the clever use of “cooperative” court injunctions.

In 1954, Johnson was facing re-election to the Senate and was being aggressively opposed by two non-profit anti-Communist groups that were attacking Johnson’s liberal agenda. In retaliation, Johnson inserted language into the IRS code that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office. In effect, Senator Johnson used the power of the go-along Congress and the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked. Some in Johnson’s staff claimed that Johnson never intended to go after churches, only the two “nonprofits” in Texas. Nevertheless, his sly amendment to the tax code affected every church in America, and it is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The legislation proposed by Rep. Jones in the 109th Congress is designed to overturn Johnson’s vindictive gag order that now penalizes churches, churches that dare speak out against government policies and politicians that the churches may deem to be immoral or bad for America. There is no reason for this gag order to remain in effect, but Congress apparently thinks it must perpetuate bad public policy simply because it exists.

Organizations like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, People For The American Way, and The American Civil Liberties Union continue to claim that this Johnson gag order must be upheld to protect “church/state separation.” This is irrational and fails to take into account the entire history of religious freedom in the United States.

Throughout our nation’s history-both before and after the American Revolution-our nation’s pastors freely spoke out on the political and moral issues of the day. It was their duty and their right under the Constitution to preach against immorality and corruption in the political and the moral realm. Historian James H. Hutson, writing in Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, notes: “Preachers seemed to vie with their brethren in other colonies in arousing their congregations against George III.” And, as Hutson discovered, the House of Representatives sponsored church services in its chambers for nearly 100 years. These services only ended when convenient transportation was available to take Members of Congress home for the weekend.

It is interesting to observe that our Founding Fathers and our first elected officials didn’t have any notion of “church/state separation,” so vehemently endorsed by Americans United and other modernist groups. Our Founders valued religion and wrote the First Amendment to protect the free expression of religious beliefs-and the freedom to speak out on the moral issues-including those involving politics and politicians.

The disservice that Lyndon Johnson did to religious freedom has yet to be undone, but in the current session of Congress, H.R. 235 must be passed-to undo Johnson’s vengeful action against his political opponents. We need to finally exorcise our public policies of the sad legacy of Landslide Lyndon.

Cong. Rec. 9604 (1954). Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr., The Unconstitutionality of Tax Regulation of Activities of Religious Organizations Relating to Politics

On July 2, 1954, Senator Lyndon Johnson was recognized from the Senate floor and the following colloquy occurred:

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas: Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, which I should like to have stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The Secretary will state the amendment.

The CHIEF CLERK: On page 117 of the House bill, in section 501(c)(3), it is proposed to strike out “individuals, and” and insert “individual,” and strike out “influence legislation.” And insert “influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas: Mr. President, this amendment seeks to extend the provisions of section 501 of the House bill, denying tax-exempt status to not only those people who influence legislation but also to those who intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for any public office. I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the committee, the minority ranking member of the committee, and several other members of the committee, and I understand that the amendment is acceptable to them. I hope the chairman will take it to conference, and that it will be included in the final bill which Congress passes.

Although not subject to debate and cryptic in its origins, following that short colloquy, the amendment, unchanged in its verbiage, eventually became part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Subsequently, it proved to have a profound effect on how thousands of tax-exempt organizations-including churches-dealt with issues relating to political campaigns.

Why Should we be upset about the Johnson Amendment?

Because it is illegal, and unconstitutional. It is just the beginning of Government intrusion into Churches.

What can we do?

Matthew 5:13-16: The Christians' Commission.

13. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and be trodden under foot of men.

14. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.

15. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

What can hold back corruption in our Government and in the world? Salt! We are commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ to be the salt of the earth, and the light of the world; to be those who have an impact upon the world, in holding back corruption and proclaiming the truth of God.

Footnotes: 1. Robert A. Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson Means of Ascent 387 (1990). 2. Id. at 317 3. Id. at 316-17 4. traditionalvalues.org

Maine fines group for criticizing Islam
Christian organization files lawsuit to challenge censorship

A Christian organization in Maine has filed a lawsuit to challenge a bureaucratic decision to impose a $4,000 fine for its "criticism" of Islam, expressed in a mailing to supporters.

The action was taken on behalf of the Christian Action Network by Liberty Counsel, where founder Mathew Staver said the state is out of line.

"The chief purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent the government from licensing the press," Staver said. "Citizens do not need permission to petition government officials or to protest government policies."

The issue developed following a Christian Action Network fundraising letter several months ago. The letter exposed "how some public schools were promoting Islalm by providing instruction on the Five Pillars of Islam and the Quran," according to the complaint against the state.

"The letter pointed out that some schools have provided a 'prayer room' for Muslims and one textbook that told seventh grade students they 'will become Muslim.' The letter listed Gov. John Baldacci as a person who is over the public schools and someone to whom the recipients of the letter should voice their opinion," the complaint said.

State officials then alleged the letter contained "an inflammatory anti-Muslim message" and used the governor's name without his permission and canceled the group's registration, imposed a $4,000 fine and said it no longer could send out letters.

That came at the same time the state was asked to renew the business license for CAN, and deposited and cashed the check for that process.

This week, the lawsuit was filed because of the free speech challenges and censorship.

"The state of Maine has no business licensing one viewpoint on controversial issues and cannot deny speech because some bureaucrat deems it 'anti-Muslim,'" said Staver.

Christian Action Network officials said the letter was dispatched to expose Islamic advocacy in public schools and ask citizens to sign a petition to their governor opposing the programs.

The accusations then came from the state Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. "The correspondence contained an inflammatory anti-Muslim message," state officials proclaimed.

"How is it illegal to mention a politician's name in a charitable solicitation letter?" said Martin Mawyer, CAN president, in a web posting before the lawsuit was filed. "Are we the only charitable group to mention the governor's name without his written consent? Of course not. So why are we being singled out?

"Clearly this is a case based on selective prosecution using a law that is patently unconstitutional," he said at the time.

He said the motive, however, is clear.

"The state of Maine believes our letter is offensive to Muslims and they want us to shut up or pay up. They are accusing us of 'hate speech' without directly calling it 'hate speech.' They want to set a legal precedent which other states can follow for suppressing free speech they find offensive," he said.

The letter had criticized a decision in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California that affirmed the right of public schools to ask students to dress up as Muslims, wear the Islamic crescent moon and star, chant "Praise be to Allah," learn the five pillars of Islamic belief and cite Muslim prayers.

The letter also cited examples of public schools removing pork from their menus, installing footbaths in tax-funded universities and an attempt in San Diego to separate boys from girls according to Islamic doctrine,

High Court Takes Up Case of Cross on Public Land
The cross, located on a rocky outcrop in the Mojave Desert, has been covered in plywood for the past several years following federal court rulings that it violates the First Amendment

The Supreme Court is taking up a long-running legal fight over a cross honoring World War I soldiers that has stood for 75 years on public land in a remote part of California.

The cross, on an outcrop known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, has been covered in plywood for the past several years following federal court rulings that it violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

The justices were to hear arguments Wednesday in a case the court could use to make an important statement about its view of the separation of church and state. The Obama administration is defending the presence of the cross, which court papers describe as being 5 to 8 feet tall.

A former National Park Service employee, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to have the cross removed or covered after the agency refused to allow erection of a Buddhist memorial nearby. Frank Buono describes himself as a practicing Catholic who has no objection to religious symbols, but he took issue with the government's decision to allow the display of only the Christian symbol.

Easter Sunrise services have been held at the site for decades.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has repeatedly ruled in Buono's favor. Congress has intervened on behalf of the cross, prohibiting the Park Service from spending money to remove the cross, designating it a national memorial and ultimately transferring the land to private ownership.

The appeals court invalidated the 2004 land transfer, saying that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve -- like a doughnut hole with the cross atop it -- will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol.

Veterans groups are on both sides of the case, with some worrying that other religious symbols that serve as war memorials could be threatened by a ruling in Buono's favor. Jewish and Muslim veterans, by contrast, object that the Mojave cross honors Christian veterans and excludes others.

The administration wants the court to rule that Buono had no right to file his lawsuit because, as a Christian, he suffers no harm from the cross. His main complaint is that others may feel excluded, the government says.

Alternatively, the administration says the land transfer took care of any First Amendment problem.

The case is Salazar v. Buono, 08-472.

Atheists say prayer makes them physically sick
'My stomach did a somersault with disgust'

Atheists recruited to be part of a lawsuit that is trying to rid government ceremonies such as the inauguration of a president of any invocation or other prayer have claimed they are made physically ill by prayer.

"As I watched the inauguration, my stomach did a somersault with disgust for how much our country was violating the constitution (sic), the most important document in our country," wrote a 15-year-old in testimony being given to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The lawsuit was filed before President Obama's inauguration and subsequently was dismissed at the district court level. Briefs now are being submitted to the appeals court in plaintiffs' hopes the case will be reopened.

"I felt a temporary state of disconnection when these religious statements and prayers were made during the inauguration," wrote another paintiff, according to an appendix of information submitted with the plaintiffs' recent arguments in the case.

"All the prayers made me feel excluded from the political process and a second-class citizen," wrote another. "But, when Chief Justice Roberts asked the president to say, 'So help me God,' I felt threatened and sick to my stomach."

Get "Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution" - (Autographed) (Hardcover)

Officials with the Pacific Justice Institute, who are defending the Revs. Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery, who spoke at the inauguration, said in their response that the Constitution simply does not require that the government be "amoral or atheistic."

"Prayers designed to solemnize public events have a long and venerable history in our nation," said PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, who authored the brief rebutting the claims.

"The First Amendment cannot be divorced from common sense," added Brad Dacus, president of PJI. "While atheists, humanists and freethinkers are a tiny minority in America, they are free to express and practice their lack of faith as they please.

"That does not mean," he continued, "however, that the vast majority of God-fearing citizens and public officials must be silenced in order to appease them."

The complaint originally was filed by a long list of people who describe themselves as atheists, as well as the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the American Humanist Association, Atheists United, Atheists for Human Rights and Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers.

The trial court judge speculated he didn't have the authority to censor speech at the inauguration. And he suggested that perhaps a sitting federal judge did not have the authority to instruct the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and the soon-to-be commander-in-chief what they could and could not say at an inauguration.

Eventually the case was dismissed because the inauguration, at which the atheists wanted to prevent any prayer, already had taken place.

The case named those involved in the inauguration as defendants. The ministers, Warren and Lowery, offered prayers at the inauguration and also are named as defendants. They are being represented in the dispute by PJI.

The PJI response noted that Michael Newdow, a California lawyer who has litigated over references to God a number of times, previously challenged inaugural prayers twice and twice has had his arguments rejected.

However, in this case he goes so far as to suggest an ulterior motive in having invocations and benedictions at Washington ceremonies.

"Plaintiffs … contend that the 'real meaning' of these declarations goes far beyond that constitutional benignity [of affirming believers' views], for they contain an element analogous to the 'real meaing' of the 'separate but equal' laws of our nation's earlier history and tradition," the atheists argue.

"Specifically, the 'real meaning' is that Atheists are 'so inferior and so degraded' that their religious views warrant no respect," they allege.

Quote from: Pastor Roger on October 08, 2009, 12:22:00 PM

They know that none of that is true. It sounds to me more like major conviction time hitting them.

It would be nice if it was major conviction hitting them because that's exactly what they need. One of the first steps toward Christ is recognizing you're a sinner in need of a Saviour. They want to stamp out "Hearing", and we should all know the significance of that. Faith does come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. I give thanks every day that I had parents who loved me enough to bring me up in the ways of the Lord. I heard God's Word every day, and my parents great love brought me to the Love of Christ. If I have nothing of the world's material possessions, I'm still Rich beyond human measure. I especially give thanks that my entire family loves the Lord.

I've been thinking a lot about these increasingly evil and chaotic times. I feel sorry for those without Christ in these difficult times. I can't imagine what that would be like. We can pray for them and keep trying to share God's Good News with them. It's ironic that many of them will hate us for our love in trying to share with them. People are still accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, so enduring hate and persecution is a small price to pay. I love this portion of Scripture:

2 Corinthians 4:1-18 KJV 1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. 8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; 9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. 12 So then death worketh in us, but life in you. 13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Love In Christ,
Tom

(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i160/tlr10/mine/mine050.jpg)

OK for 63 years, now Jesus in manger gets dumped
Privately sponsored scene victim of 'separation of church, state'

John Satawa's family has displayed a nativity scene on a street median in Warren, Mich., virtually every Christmas season since 1945, but following an intimidating letter sent by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Satawa's county has put stop to the 63-year-old tradition.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation proclaims its purpose in the letter to the Road Commission of Macomb County was to "protect the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of church and state."

But Satawa contends there's nothing unconstitutional about his privately owned and maintained Christmas display. With the help of the Thomas More Law Center, Satawa has filed a case in U.S. district court asking the judge to declare the county's crèche rejection unconstitutional instead and order officials to permit its display.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, commented in a statement, "Every Christmas holiday, militant atheists … use the phrase 'separation of church and state' – nowhere found in our Constitution – as a means of intimidating municipalities and schools into removing expressions celebrating Christmas, a national holiday. Their goal is to cleanse our public square of all Christian symbols.

"However," Thompson continued, "the grand purpose of our Founding Fathers and the First Amendment was to protect religion, not eliminate it. Municipalities and schools should be aware that the systematic exclusion of Christmas symbols during the holiday season is itself inconsistent with the Constitution."

The story of the nativity scene began in 1945, when the congregation of St. Anne's Parish was established in the Village of Warren, and a set of Christmas statues was donated to the Catholic church for a nativity display.

The statues were too large to display inside the church, the lawsuit explains, so some members of the congregation thought it would be a good idea to display the statues and a manger in the center of the village during the Christmas holiday season.

Satawa's father, Joseph Satawa, using donated lumber, built a manger for the crèche, and obtained permission from the village president to display the scene on the median between Mound and Chicago Roads.

Though the years, local businesses and citizens have donated materials and labor to erect and refurnish the nativity. It has been a Warren tradition for 63 years, still spearheaded by the Satawa family, and it has graced the same street median every year, save for 1996, when construction prohibited its display.

But in December of 2008, the Freedom from Religion Foundation sent the county a complaint letter.

It read, in part, "When the county displays this manger scene, which depicts the legendary birth of Jesus Christ, it places in imprimatur of the Macomb County government behind the Christian religious doctrine. This excludes citizens who are not Christian – Jews, Native American religion practitioners, animists, etc., as well as the significant and growing population that is not religious at all."

Citing a selection of Supreme Court cases, the letter concludes, "There are ample private and church grounds where religious displays may be freely placed, including, presumably, St. Anne's Parish, where this display clearly belongs. Once the government enters into the religion business, conferring endorsement and preference for one religion over others, it strikes a blow at religious liberty, forcing taxpayers of all faiths and of no religion to support a particular expression of worship."

After receiving the letter, the county road commission demanded Satawa remove the nativity scene because he had not obtained the appropriate permit.

When Satawa applied for the permit in anticipation of the upcoming 2009 Christmas season, he was denied and told by the county that the nativity scene "clearly displays a religious message" in alleged violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Thomas More Law Center, however, contends the Establishment clause should protect the nativity, not forbid it.

The lawsuit points out that private displays of the community's history and tradition are currently permitted and constructed on the median in question, and that the county is discriminating against the private nativity display based solely on its content, not its constitutionality.

"The United States Supreme Court has long held that all public streets, which includes public medians, are held in the public trust and are properly considered traditional public forums for private speech," commented Law Center attorney Robert Muise in a statement, citing his own legal precedents. "Moreover, the Supreme Court has also stated that 'private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression.'

"Consequently," he concluded, "by restricting speech because it is religious expression, the Road Commission is imposing a content-based restriction on private speech in a traditional public forum in clear violation of the Constitution."

Specifically, the lawsuit contends, the county's prohibition of the private nativity scene "lacks a valid secular purpose, has the primary effect of inhibiting religion and creates an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the United States Constitution."

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Gerald Rosen, chief judge of the Eastern District of Michigan.

Teachers forced to 'hide in closets' to pray
School employees ordered to stop others from 'communicating with a deity'

Florida school teachers say they are being forced to hide in closets to pray after a controversial court ruling.

Under an order crafted by the ACLU, school employees in Santa Rosa School District must act in an "official capacity" whenever they are at a "school event" – including breaks, after-school events on or off campus and private events held on campus.

Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit law firm, alongside Christian Educators Association International, is seeking to overturn the court order, which has resulted in three school officials being charged with contempt.

According to the group, school officials are strictly prohibited from showing agreement with anyone "communicating with a deity," such as "bowing the head" or "folding hands." "School officials" must also prohibit "third-parties" from praying, Liberty Counsel said.

During testimony that ended last week, Christian employees said the order has literally driven them to hide in closets to pray to avoid contempt charges.

As WND reported, Michelle Winkler, a clerical assistant, earlier faced contempt charges after her husband read a prayer at a private banquet held at a Naval base to honor non-instructional school district employees. The judge eventually found that Winkler's husband's prayer at a voluntary gathering outside of school did not violate any court order.

During her recent testimony, Winkler broke down on the witness stand as she told a story about how her coworker sought comfort from her after losing her 2-year-old child.

The two hid behind a closet door to pray, for fear they would be seen and held in contempt of the court order.

Denise Gibson, an elementary teacher for 20 years, testified that the order requires her to inform parents that she cannot respond if they mention church or their faith. She said she is prohibited from replying to e-mails from parents if they contain Bible verses or even "God bless you." Instead, she said, the district has instructed her to open a separate e-mail to answer the parents rather than hit "reply." The district calls for the action to eliminate any trace of religious language in school communication.

As WND reported, Liberty Counsel successfully defended Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman against criminal contempt charges after the ACLU complained when Freeman gave a 15-second blessing for a lunch meal for 20 adults with no students present.

The men had faced penalties of up to six months in jail and $5,000 in fines each.

The situation began in August 2008 when two anonymous students sued with the help of the ACLU over long-standing practices at the school allowing prayer at some events. The school's separate counsel had agreed to a consent decree that "essentially bans all Santa Rose County School District employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities," Liberty Counsel reported.

WND also reported earlier when members of the 2009 graduating class at Florida's Pace High School expressed their objections to the ACLU restrictions on statements of religious faith at their school by rising up en masse at their ceremony and reciting the Lord's Prayer.

Nearly 400 graduating seniors at Pace, a Santa Rosa County school, stood up at their graduation, according to Staver. Parents, family and friends joined in the recitation, and applauded the students when they were finished, Staver told WND.

"Many of the students also painted crosses on their graduation caps to make a statement of faith," the organization reported.

"The court order crafted by the ACLU takes my breath away," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. "I am embarrassed for our country, knowing that school employees in Santa Rosa County are hiding in closets to pray out of fear they may be hauled into court by the ACLU. We intend to restore religious freedom to Santa Rosa County. We will not allow the ACLU to criminalize Christianity."

Psalms banned, but witchcraft OK
Supreme Court endorses 'hostility' toward Christianity

A lower court's "hostility" towards Christianity will stand after the U.S. Supreme Court today refused to intervene in a school district's censorship of a kindergartener's choice of literature for a class reading.

"By refusing to hear Mrs. Busch's case, the U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed the kind of hostility toward religion that should never be found in an American public school," said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which took on the Newtown Square, Pa., case.

As WND reported, Donna Busch accepted an invitation to visit her son Wesley's kindergarten classroom at Culbertson Elementary School to read a passage of Wesley's favorite book to his classmates in October 2004. Wesley's teacher had invited Busch because the boy was the featured student of "All About Me," a school event to feature a particular student and emphasize the student's personal characteristics, preferences and personality in classroom activities.

During the "All About Me" activity, a child's parent may read aloud from the student's favorite book. In this case, Wesley, a Christian, chose the Bible. His mother planned to read from Psalm 118.

But when Donna Busch prepared to read from the Bible, Wesley's teacher instructed her not to do so until Principal Thomas Cook could determine whether it would be acceptable.

According to the Rutherford Institute, the principal "informed Mrs. Busch that she could not read from the Bible in the classroom because it was against the law and that the reading would violate the 'separation of church and state.'"

Then school administrators offered Wesley's mother an opportunity to read from a book about witches, witchcraft and Halloween. She declined the invitation.

A 2005 decision in U.S. District Court sided with the school's decision to ban the Bible reading. Officials with the Marple Newtown School District had defended their actions as reasonable, and the trial court judge agreed.

A Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision upheld the lower court's ruling that the school officials' decision did not violate the Busch family's First Amendment rights.

The court held that "educators may appropriately restrict forms of expression in elementary school classrooms" even when speakers have been invited into the classroom.

Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman issued a strong dissent, noting that the reading of a passage from Psalms to Wesley's class was within the subject matter of the "All About Me" unit, which was to highlight things of interest and importance to Wesley. The judge said the exclusion constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment because it was based solely upon its religious character.

The Supreme Court decision not to hear the case creates unwelcome precedents, Whitehead said.

"If these acts of censorship and discrimination are allowed to continue, there will be absolutely no freedom for religious people in public schools in this country," he said.

The case had highlighted the fact that while Busch was not allowed to read from the Bible, another parent was allowed to read a book about Judaism and teach the class a dreidel game.

ChristiansUnite Forums

Entertainment => Politics and Political Issues => Topic started by: Soldier4Christ on December 23, 2007, 10:11:54 AM