Christ, Christians and Christmas Under Attack In The Courts

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The appearance by Zed was disturbing, he added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

Another Christian club has to sue for free access to school

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the judges also dismissed the Wirthlin's argument.

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

[HisDaughter]

The whole country has become a Frank Peretti book.  It's a nightmare, with satan on the loose and demons running amuck everywhere.  In schools, in government, in homes, etc.  Everywhere you turn.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

Michigan student censored over candy canes

The full Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being asked to review the case of a student who was censored for expressing a religious viewpoint as part of a school project.

In 2003, administrators at Handley School in Saginaw, Michigan, barred Joel Curry -- then a fifth-grader -- from selling candy cane ornaments to fellow students as part of a classroom project. Curry was told he could not participate until he removed an attached pamphlet explaining the religious symbolism of the candy cane.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund sued on Curry's behalf -- and in 2006, a federal judge ruled the school violated Curry's First Amendment rights. However, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit disagreed with that ruling, saying religious speech by students is offensive and thus can be censored.

Jeff Shafer is an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, and he says there is a good chance the full sixth circuit court will agree to hear the case. "Joel's school project complied entirely with the standards and objectives of the assignment to which it responded," claims Shafer. "The principal's admitted targeting of Joel's speech simply because of its Christian message is an affront both to his convictions and his constitutional liberties."

Shafer says Christian students should not be penalized for expressing their religious beliefs, and that the school's actions must be challenged. He calls the panel's ruling "an astonishing departure" from fundamental First Amendment principles, and is hopeful the full Sixth Circuit will agree to review the case and confirm that students cannot be singled out for discrimination based on the religious viewpoint of their speech.

[Soldier4Christ]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

Nebraska sidewalk witness wins free-speech battle

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

Kevin Pulver just wanted to stand on a public sidewalk adjacent to Hastings College and share his faith with anyone who was interested in listening. But according to Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Nate Kellum, local authorities objected to Pulver's presence and his message.
 
"He met much resistance from the Hastings Police Department," says Kellum. "They came out there no less than 13 times, coming up with various reasons as to why he could not be there, and finally they threatened him with arrest if he continued to express his faith in public."

The attorney says Pulver was aware his actions might irritate local authorities. "He was sure not to trespass on the private college. He didn't even try to do that," Kellum explains. "He stood in the one place where every citizen is guaranteed a fundamental right to free speech, and that is the public sidewalk. And yet the police officers didn't seem to recognize his rights."
 
Pulver was eventually charged with disturbing the peace and violating a city noise ordinance, but the court later agreed those charges were "trumped up." "In a very cordial way, he tried to explain that he had a constitutional right to be on a public sidewalk and share his views and ... the police officers simply did not heed that message," explains Kellum. "And so, in order to give Mr. Pulver the freedom which the First Amendment guarantees, he had to be assured of that right through litigation."
 
The U.S. District Court for Nebraska ordered the City of Hastings to repeal the unconstitutional ordinance that was used to threaten Pulver. That action will guarantee he can share the gospel on public sidewalks without fear of reprisals from police.
 
Kellum says the quick decision by the court sends a message to other cities that they must respect the free-speech rights of all citizens.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Philly 5' Christians appeal lawsuit over arrests

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

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

According to attorney Joseph Infranco, those actions paved the way for a civil suit against the City of Philadelphia and the OutFest participants, claiming that his clients suffered constitutional harm as a result and arguing no one else should be subjected to such actions. "So this is a civil suit now, to make them accountable for their actions -- and filing those criminal charges was part of that," he adds.
 
Infranco, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, was at Monday's hearing, which asked appeals court judges to reinstate the lawsuit dismissed by the initial civil trial judge. The consensus at that time, he shares, was that the judges were more sympathetic to his clients than to those accused of violating their constitutional rights.
 
"They got the point," says Infranco, referring to the judges. "They got the point that when somebody goes into the public square and has an event and exercises their First Amendment rights -- [that] when you open such an event to the public, then you have to anticipate that some members of the public who disagree with that speech are going to be present, as well."
 
According to the ADF attorney, the same would be true if the tables were turned. "If you had a Christian event and you invited the public and it was in a public place ... well, you would have to expect other people would come along who want to express a contrary view," he suggests. "We're not trying to shout them down or anything like that. [But] what you're talking about is both views being expressed, side by side."
 
Infranco says winning the lawsuit is important to protect other Christians from what he describes as "constitutionally abhorrent" actions against them in the future. "We ... want what's called declaratory relief, so that the court ... says there should not be a repeat of this at a future event," the attorney explains. "It's the most basic form of discrimination because the police did not like the content of the message -- and that's completely inconsistent with the First Amendment."
 
A decision from the appeals court is expected in approximately two to three months, adds Infranco.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

Wisconsin burg accused of violating First Amendment rights

A federal lawsuit has been filed against a Wisconsin village where officials are accused of squelching the First Amendment rights of a Christian.

Last spring, Michael Foht went to two neighborhoods in the village of Kewaskum to put flyers with a gospel message on the doors of homes. But one resident complained, and a police officer told Foht that an ordinance prohibited him from distributing the literature. Foht was also informed that he would be fined more than $170 every time he violated the ordinance.
 
Nate Kellum is with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is suing on behalf of Foht. He says Christians should not be penalized for expressing their beliefs. "Now certainly if someone put up a sign saying 'no soliciting' or 'no trespassing' or something that would preclude somebody from coming on the property, that's one thing," states Kellum. "But outside of that, everyone has a right to go to someone's door, knock on it, and see if they're interested in your message."
 
Kellum says the ordinance is too broad and denies citizens the most basic free-speech rights. Foht has not returned to the village to distribute the literature since the controversy erupted.

[Soldier4Christ]

Atheist lawyer tries again to get 'under God' nixed from Pledge

Atheist lawyer Michael Newdow is once again trying to have the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance -- this time in New Hampshire.

David Cortman, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, says Newdow seems to be on a mission to destroy America's Christian heritage. He believes Newdow will not be happy until all of the founding fathers' documents are censored to remove any reference to God.
 
Newdow has filed the latest in his series of lawsuits against references to God in government oaths, ceremonies, and pledges in the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire -- a move that Cortman equates with "venue shopping."
 
"Enough is enough," states Cortman. "He should not be allowed to roam the country and try to find a suitable court that will agree with his musings."
 
Cortman finds it ironic that Newdow complains about the imposition created when an atheist is allegedly "forced" to listen to the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. "While he complains consistently about the impositions of certain religious beliefs on him from the majority," he continues, "his goal is actually to impose his beliefs on the rest of us."
 
The Alliance Defense Fund has filed a "friend of the court" brief opposing Newdow's latest legal assault on the Pledge of Allegiance. According to an ABC News-Washington Post poll taken in 2004, 89 percent of Americans say the Pledge should contain the phrase "under God."

[Soldier4Christ]

CA Judge Rules that Bible Verse is Hate Speech

Judge rejects students' free-speech suit over anti-gay T-shirt
A federal judge has rejected a claim that the Poway Unified School District violated a teenager's First Amendment rights by pulling him out of class for wearing a T-shirt with an anti-gay slogan.

Tuesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge John Houston reaffirmed an earlier decision in which he found the school district's policy on hate speech lawful.

Tyler Harper sued the school in 2004 after the district said he could not wear a shirt printed with a Bible verse condemning homosexuality. His younger sister, Kelsie, was named as a plaintiff after he graduated.

What was that stuff about freedom of religion?

I wonder how a similar verse from the Koran would have gone?