Christ, Christians and Christmas Under Attack In The Courts

[Soldier4Christ]

Where is the common sense in this, especially from the Centers for Disease Control?

There is no evidence of common sense but that is true throughout our government anymore.

The CDC even has a report out that lists all the diseases, both mental and physical, that are uniquely high in this dangerous lifestyle and are attributed in that report as being a direct result of that lifestyle. Keeping the truth from these people is nothing less than murder.


Eze 3:18  When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Eze 3:19  Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[nChrist]

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.'"

There is NO lawful charge for disrupting the event - IF that happened, and the court should have known that. Removal of the Christians would have required REAL violations of REAL and existing LAWS - not manufactured laws to fit the occasion. Examples of REAL laws would include things like:  1) trespassing - no right to be there - most usually connected to private property;  2) fighting or conduct known to commonly cause fighting and violence;  3) use of sound equipment requiring a permit;  4) acts known to incite riot;  5) presence of weapons, flammable materials (i.e. gasoline), and other illegal items likely to be used to harm others, etc. In short, the Christians didn't violate any laws, and the courts know it. There are even laws that pertain to passing out literature - to prevent littering, but there is no mention of any violation of ANY law. In short, there was gross discrimination. The gays were given rights, and the rights of the Christians were removed. This is becoming a common problem, and this is ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[nChrist]

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."

This is simply more anti-Christian garbage from California. It's discrimination not based on academics at all. AND, it does not take a legal scholar to know that what they're doing is illegal and Unconstitutional if they receive taxpayer funding or support of any kind. The argument of the schools is juvenile and without logic. However, this is now typical of things happening in California.

[Soldier4Christ]

Texas Bible decision may start a trend

Last year, the Texas Legislature passed a law allowing Bible courses to be offered as an elective by public school districts. Recently the State Board of Education gave final approval to the courses, which will focus on the history and literature of the Bible.

Jonathan Saenz is with Liberty Legal Institute, which helped craft the legal arguments for the elective course. He predicts the impact of the decision will be felt nationwide.
 
"Texas is going to be seen as a leader on this issue," says Saenz, who argues that school districts across America want to offer a Bible elective -- and students across the country want to take it. "And you have very few state legislators sending the signal that it's okay for them to do that," he remarks.
 
Saenz points out that there have been firm decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court upholding such courses. According to Saenz, scholars and jurists have supported such courses for years.
 
"[There are] over 1,300 references to the Bible in the works of Shakespeare," he points out, "[and] numerous examples that we know in common communication in history and art that come from the Bible...o this is not only going to be a step forward for students who are interested in this class, it's going to give them an academic advantage as they move on to college."
 
Officials are still waiting for a ruling from the attorney general on whether the classes must be offered to students or left up to school districts to decide.

[Soldier4Christ]

'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.

[Soldier4Christ]

No proselytizing seen in military leaders

An evangelical Army chaplain says he has seen no evidence to support the claims brought by an anti-Christian organization of a pattern of discrimination against non-Christians in the military.

Michael Weinstein is a former Air Force officer who founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Weinstein's organization -- along with Army Specialist Jeremy Hall -- is suing the Department of Defense, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Major Freddie Welborn, claiming the United States military is force-feeding evangelical Christianity on service members. Weinstein told CNN that he has been contacted by more than 8,000 members of the military, almost all of them complaining of pressure to embrace evangelical Christianity.
 
Lt. Colonel Tom Wheatley is the division chaplain for the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii. He does not deny there is proselytizing done in the military -- but it is not coming from commanders, he says.
 
"I will tell you that I have not seen it happen from specific commanders or from leadership, [but] sometimes [from] fellow soldiers," he shares. "Say you have a fellow soldier who is a strong Christian -- they might give a fellow soldier a hard time who professes to be atheist or maybe a different faith group."
 
Such things will happen, says Wheatley, even though not sanctioned by the Army. "It's usually what I would call a rogue element," he explains; "someone who is acting on their own based on their strong beliefs."
 
Wheatley says even sergeants know fairly clearly that they are not allowed to force their beliefs on others.

[Soldier4Christ]

The many years I was in the Navy I never saw any religious beliefs "forced" on anyone and certainly not any type of persecution on any non-believers. I did witness just one time the opposite. An attempted persecution of an individual for his Christian beliefs. That was done peers, not any leadership, and was quickly nipped in the bud.

What is pushed on individuals is the fact that they are all there for one objective and one alone and that it takes complete teamwork and appropriate Military discipline to meet that objective.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

Colorado has been in the news recently with other outrageous actions by state government. This attempted discrimination against Christian education fits the developing picture perfectly. It's becoming pretty apparent that the current Colorado State Government is ROGUE and could care less about the wishes of the people. In fact, it sounds like the devil is one busy little boy in Colorado State Government right now.

My little brother and his family live in Colorado, and I feel quite certain there will be a response by decent people in Colorado soon. This specific case is small in comparison to the other things happening in Colorado. The decent people of Colorado will either have to take their state back or Colorado will be unlivable soon. I believe that the response by decent people in Colorado to many outrageous cases will be dramatic. The response will have to be dramatic, or decent people will need to consider leaving Colorado. The same is true for outrageous things happening in California.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Christian Quotes 311 -
"The enemy will not see you vanish into God's company without an
effort to reclaim you."
 -- C.S. Lewis

[Soldier4Christ]

'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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[HisDaughter]

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."

[Soldier4Christ]

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.