Christ, Christians and Christmas Under Attack In The Courts

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger Said:

Prof calls Christian student 'fascist *******'
Lawsuit filed after speech met with: 'Ask God what your grade is'

He needs to put a big "A" on the paper and hand it back to the so-called professor.

Clowns like this have no business in teaching anyone. Just think:  AFTER THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST - all of the clowns will be gone, and nobody will miss them.

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[nChrist]

The wrong person is going to jail, and that should be obvious. Multiple witnesses LIED to send this man to jail, and the court KNEW IT. Lying under OATH to send a man to jail is a serious CRIMINAL OFFENSE - much more SERIOUS than the OFFENSE the man was charged with. The COURT ALSO KNOWS THIS!

In this case, the COURT is just as guilty as the LYING WITNESSES of WORSE than a MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE!

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

I don't know about the rest of the country but, If I crossed onto a ranchers property, their property is almost always fenced (in Arizona), and did not have his permission to be there, I'd be guilty of trespass. The rancher would be well within his rights to stop me by gun point and hold me there until the police arrive.

The illegal aliens, are criminals for entering this country, then they go and trespass and expect it to be O.K.? Civil rights are for U.S. citizens not aliens.

Part of the problems is this rarely gets covered in the main stream media, since they are for all the illegal aliens. 20 years ago this would be all over the news with everyone throwing a fit but not now, no they are sympathetic the the "poor" illegals. This just makes me sick.

Amazing that our courts would even give a lawsuit filed by criminals the time of day!! That's like a bank robber demanding rights when the police take his gun away.

[nChrist]

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!

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[nChrist]

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!!

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[nChrist]

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.

[Shammu]

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

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[nChrist]

Punitive damages and/or criminal charges should be sought against the IHSA. Rogue agencies trying to trample over the rights of Christians need remedial and expensive education on every single incident. The same should be true with the ACLU and groups like them. UM? - Maybe there's a good reason why they used to have PUBLIC FLOGGINGS! Maybe this would slow down some folks involved in trying to subvert or remove civil and Constitutional Rights. This should also apply to judges, any public official, and certainly include the President of the United States.

[Shammu]

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.

If they don't like prayers, or religious announcements they need to find a different private school.

"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.

I wonder if they know, prayer takes place a ALL NASCAR races. I remember a time, when NASCAR was threaten because of prayer. The drivers refused to race, unless prayer was said before the race.

UM? - Maybe there's a good reason why they used to have PUBLIC FLOGGINGS!

Lets not forget the stocks, which are popular are at the Renaissance festivals.