Christ, Christians and Christmas Under Attack In The Courts

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[nChrist]

Anyone who wants to can still get a mountain of evidence indicating the TRUTH about GOD and our founding. The devil has managed to change our text books and what's taught to our children, but the TRUTH is still available as mountains of evidence. I have a mountain of that evidence on my own computer because I feared that the devil might try to destroy the central repositories of the Library of Congress and other places. The TRUTH can't be destroyed and neither can GOD'S WORD. There is no doubt at all that the founders heavily relied on GOD'S WORD for EVERYTHING. This is something to be proud of because it gives GLORY to GOD, and the founders obviously intended to give GLORY to GOD. After all, our Congress ordered the first English Printing of the Holy Bible in America. Taxpayer dollars were used to purchase Bibles for use in public schools, and that was TAX DOLLARS WELL SPENT!

The devil can't stand to hear things like the above, and the two words that the devil hates the most are "JESUS CHRIST". I plan to give the devil regular doses of things that he can't stand and hates. IF THE DEVIL DOES GET HIS WAY - IT WON'T BE FOR LONG! THE DEVIL HAS A DATE WITH HELL COMING UP SOON!

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[nChrist]

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."

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!

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[nChrist]

The Pastor has a winner here unless there is something dangerous or illegal about parking or something else that would create a hazard. This one should be forced all the way, but only after checking some sort of technicality with safety, noise, disturbance, etc. Otherwise, this is none of the government's business, AND THEY NEED TO BUTT OUT!

Regardless of technicalities, there are legal ways to have home Bible studies that the government HAD BEST NOT TRY TO STOP! We obey all the rules that pertain to safety and other reasonable provisions, but we will have the home Bible Study. If the government uses ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL means to stop one, we'll have thousands! This could get real expensive for the government and might even raise enough money for a new church.

We see what's coming - don't we? We ALL MUST DEMAND AND TAKE our religious freedoms!

[light2light]

San Diego Bible Study; San Diego County Officials Back Down
By Shannon Bell

Whatever you do, don’t hold a private home bible study in San Diego County. It could cost you big time. That’s what a local Pastor and his wife have found out, the hard way. The couple claims they were questioned by a county official who asked, “Do you have a regular meeting in your home?”, ‘Do you say amen?’, ‘Do you pray?’, ‘Do you say praise the Lord?’.

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4015

You would think the above was the stuff of fiction. 

Unbelievable.

[nChrist]

YEAH!

I'm happy to hear that the county became sufficiently informed to know that a horrible mistake had been made, and the county had a BIG LOSER if they pushed the issue. THE CONSTITUTION PREVAILED ON THIS ONE!

Light2light, thanks sincerely for the followup information.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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.

…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:

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:

    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.

[nChrist]

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

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."

[nChrist]

UM? - It sounds like some professors and universities need some remedial training on BASIC CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! They can start with FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Each of them definitely needs to be given a copy of the CONSTITUTION! Educators need to be tested on things like this and FIRED if they don't know and understand our BASIC CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

This is pretty SAD AND DUMB for anyone representing so-called HIGHER EDUCATION! Maybe the students can TEACH THE TEACHERS AND THE TEACHERS CAN PAY THE STUDENTS!