Christ, Christians and Christmas Under Attack In The Courts

[Soldier4Christ]

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

A court hearing is coming in which the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be asked to restore to Christians the rights that political correctness in the United States today grants other religions, including the right to pray to their God.

The case involves Rev. Hashmel Turner and the city of Fredericksburg, Va., and is being handled by the constitutional experts at The Rutherford Institute.

Turner, a member of the city council in Fredericksburg, was part of a rotation of council members who would take turns bringing a prayer at the council meetings, and he ended his prayers "in Jesus name."

That offended a listener, who promptly brought several heavyweight activist groups into the picture with their threat of a lawsuit if the elected Christian council member wasn't censored, so the city adopted a policy requiring "nondenominational" prayers, effectively eliminating any reference to "Jesus."

John Whitehead, the founder and chief of The Rutherford Institute, told WND it's an issue of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, burdened with the politically correct atmosphere in the United States that appears to endorse or at least allow any sort of religious acknowledgement, such as the University of Michigan building footbaths for Muslims, but allows no similar acknowledgement of Christianity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

Federal judge says students forbidden to vote on prayer

A federal judge has prohibited the Round Rock school district from allowing students to vote on whether to have prayers at graduation.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks is included in an agreement reached by the school district and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The Washington-based group sued the school district in August on behalf of six parents and a former student.

The suit was prompted by a majority of seniors at McNeil, Round Rock and Stony Point high schools who decided to have prayers at their graduations. Most students who cast ballots at Westwood High School voted against an invocation at commencement.

In its petition, Americans United said prayers at a school-sponsored event violated "the boundary between church and state that is necessary in a pluralistic society."

Sparks' judgment forbids the school district from holding any election or vote by students to have a prayer, benediction, invocation "or other religious communication" in any graduation unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules in future cases that such votes can be held.

Sparks dismissed the suit against the school district.

[Soldier4Christ]

Go-ahead given to lawsuit against teacher for 'anti-Christian diatribes'

A lawsuit accusing a public school teacher of making anti-Christian remarks during a history class will move forward.

Chad Farnan, a sophomore at Capistrano Valley High School, claims his Advanced Placement European history teacher, James Corbett, made hostile remarks toward Christianity. The Christian student cites an incident from last December when Corbett stated that conservatives do not want women to avoid pregnancies because that interferes with God's work. In another statement, recorded by Farnan, the teacher claimed that when people put on their "Jesus glasses," they cannot see the truth.
 
Jennifer Monk is with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is representing Farnan. She agrees with the judge who denied the school's motion to dismiss the case. "At stake really is a Christian student's rights to go to public school and be able to express their faith and hold their faith without being discriminated against in the classroom," she argues.
 
Monk says the judge clearly saw there was probable cause for the case to proceed, but attorneys for the school argue the teacher in question is a 35-year veteran educator whose statements were taken out of context. But Corbett's statements are "definitely not passing remarks," says Monk.
 
"These are anti-Christian diatribes by this teacher pretty much almost every day in class," says the attorney. In addition to the comments about "Jesus glasses," says Monk, "he's said things like 'Aristotle argued that there has to be a god. Of course, that's nonsense.'"
 
The case should be heard by the end of the year.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

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

Turner, a resident of the city of Fredericksburg, Va., and a member of its town council, was part of a rotation of council members who would take turns bringing a prayer at the council meetings, and he ended his prayers "in Jesus name."

That offended a listener, who promptly brought several heavyweight activist groups into the picture with their threat of a lawsuit if the elected Christian council member wasn't censored, so the city adopted a policy requiring "nondenominational" prayers, effectively eliminating any reference to "Jesus."

John Whitehead, the founder and chief of The Rutherford Institute, told WND it's an issue of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, burdened with the politically correct atmosphere in the United States that appears to endorse or at least allow any sort of religious acknowledgement, except for Christians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What's the difference?" he asked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLJ Senior Counsel Frank Manion was at the Illinois Supreme Court just this week as co-counsel in two very important pro-life cases.  Here is Frank's report:
 
Morr-Fitz, et al. v. Blagojevich, et al.
 
The ACLJ is co-counsel for two pro-life pharmacy owners in Illinois who have sued the Governor and other state officials over a 2005 administrative regulation that coerces pro-life pharmacists into dispensing Plan B, the so-called ''morning-after pill.''  The lawsuit asks that the regulation, which provides for license revocation and steep fines for religiously-based refusals to dispense, be struck down as violative of the First Amendment, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
 
The trial court dismissed the lawsuit and a divided court of appeals affirmed that dismissal on the grounds that the lawsuit was not ''ripe'' for adjudication because the pharmacists had not yet actually suffered any concrete harm from the regulation.  As a result, the Illinois Supreme Court granted review of the case.
 
On March 18, 2008, the case was argued before the Illinois Supreme Court.  The court appeared to be receptive to our arguments - both that the case was indeed ripe for consideration, and, further, that the regulation was in apparent conflict with the state's Health Care Right of Conscience Act.  A clear majority of the justices were openly skeptical of the arguments put forth by the state's attorney.  We anticipate a ruling perhaps within the next 60 days.
 
This case is just one of a number of related pieces of litigation that have made up the ACLJ's ongoing efforts to protect the conscience rights of pro-life health care professionals in Illinois and elsewhere.  Directly related to the Morr-Fitz case, is the case of Menges et al. v. Blagojevich, where the ACLJ represented seven individual pharmacists suing over the same regulation at issue in Morr-Fitz.  The U.S. District Court ruled that our clients had a valid claim that the regulation violated their Free Exercise rights because there was evidence that it intentionally targeted religious objectors.  After that ruling, the state agreed to enter into an agreement that the regulation did not apply to individual pharmacists (as opposed to pharmacy owners) and that it could not be applied against our clients.
 
In Vandersand v. Wal-Mart, the U.S. District Court held that Illinois pharmacists are clearly covered by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which prohibits discrimination against any person based on that person's refusal to participate in any form of health care contrary to his or her moral or religious convictions.  In Nead v. Bd. of Trustees, the court upheld the right of a nurse to sue under Title VII after being denied a promotion based on her opposition to dispensing the morning-after pill.  In Moncivaiz v. DeKalb County, the court upheld the claims of a part-time secretary in a county health department who refused to participate in abortion referrals.  And in 2002, we obtained a jury verdict on behalf of a pro-life nurse who was fired by her county employer for refusing to participate in abortion-related procedures (Diaz v. Riverside County).
 
Current litigation includes Quayle, et al. v. Walgreens, in which we are pursuing claims against Walgreens for firing four Illinois pharmacists and Baretela v. Unity Health, in which we represent a New York state social worker fired for refusing to participate in abortion referrals.
 
The ACLJ has been and remains at the forefront of a litigation to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of health care professionals.  No American should be forced to make a choice between their conscience and their livelihood.

[Soldier4Christ]

Okla. lawmaker threatened with legal action for practicing free speech

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

During a recent speech at a Republican club meeting, Sooner State Representative Sally Kern said she was concerned that the homosexual agenda would destroy the nation and that the threat the movement poses is as big a threat to the nation as terrorism. She also told how young public school children are being indoctrinated into believing that the homosexual lifestyle is normal.
 
Reaction to her speech, which was posted on YouTube, was swift from homosexual activists. Kern said she received more than 27,000 emails to her office and home computers, many of them filled with profanity and vulgarity.
 
Now Kern is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center. Attorney Brian Rooney says his client has been threatened with legal action for expressing her First Amendment right to free speech. He believes homosexual activists will use the incident to push for hate crimes legislation.
 
"Really [it's] a ploy to try to intimidate Representative Kern in particular, and the state legislature in Oklahoma in general, to try to get these laws passed that favor them and end up criminalizing Christianity," he says.
 
Rooney explains that in addition to defending Kern's right to free speech, the Law Center wants to deliver a message to those threatening the lawmaker.
 
"[We're] making sure that these advocacy groups for the radical homosexuals know that a Christian public-interest law firm is involved, and that Representative Kern does not back down one iota from what she said; she stands by that," says the attorney. In addition, he says his firm wants those groups to know that "if there's any ill-conceived or misguided lawsuits against her that we will defend her free of charge."
 
Rooney says legal action may also be taken against some homosexual advocacy groups who erroneously reported that Kern's son was homosexual. Rooney says many media outlets reported that information, despite the fact that the homosexual groups did not have the correct name of Kern's son.
 
Four years ago, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soldier4Christ]

9th Circuit upholds constitutionality of Ten Commandments monument

Attorney Steve Fitschen is applauding a federal appeals court that has upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display in a northwest Washington city.

The case involves a six-foot granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments that sits near the Old City Hall in Everett, Washington. The local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument to the city in 1959 -- and no one complained about it for more than 30 years. In its ruling in Card v. City of Everett, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the display does not have a solely religious purpose.
 
Steven W. Fitschen, president of the National Legal Foundation, says the case shows the true agenda of liberal groups. Americans, he argues, should not have to abandon their religious heritage in order to appease someone's political agenda -- an agenda he says is not even hidden.
 
"There is an agenda -- there's no doubt about it," says Fitschen. "Just go on the Internet [and] look at the websites of folks like the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Atheists -- and [it's] very clear about what they're trying to do."
 
The agenda of such groups is to rewrite history and remove any mention or acknowledgment of the God of the Bible, says the attorney, who believes it is important to defend the country's national heritage from revisionists.
 
"This country was founded as a Christian nation," he points out. "Yes, there is religious pluralism, but we don't need to lie about the past." Instead, says Fitschen, Americans "need to honor ... and build on the past -- not rewrite history."

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is suing the town of Greece, New York, on behalf of residents Susan Galloway, who is Jewish, and Linda Stephens, an atheist. The pair is offended because, for past decade, town council meetings have been preceded by a voluntary prayer -- typically offered by a local clergy member.
 
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United, argues that repeatedly offering Christian prayer at the meetings "sends a message to non-Christians that they are second-class citizens. That's not a message public officials should want to send ...." But Joel Oster,  the Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel representing the town, disputes claims by Lynn's gruop that the council is promoting Christianity by allowing the prayers.

"[The town council does] not edit the contents of these prayers. They do not pre-review the prayers. They are not the prayer police," chides Oster. "They are just simply following a time-honored tradition established by our founding fathers ...."
 
Oster says he is somewhat baffled by the fact that Americans United would ask the government to censor the content of voluntary prayers. "We actually believe that what Americans United are (sic) asking us to do is to violate the Establishment Clause," he continues, "because the town should not be in the business of telling private citizens how they should pray."
 
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v. Chambers that beginning deliberative sessions of legislative bodies with prayer is constitutional. Oster says he believes the judge in this case will stick to the Supreme Court ruling.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

A Tomah High School student has filed a federal lawsuit alleging his art teacher censored his drawing because it featured a cross and a biblical reference.

The lawsuit alleges other students were allowed to draw "demonic" images and asks a judge to declare a class policy prohibiting religion in art unconstitutional.

"We hear so much today about tolerance," said David Cortman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group representing the student. "But where is the tolerance for religious beliefs? The whole purpose of art is to reflect your own personal experience. To tell a student his religious beliefs can legally be censored sends the wrong message."

Tomah School District Business Manager Greg Gaarder said the district hadn't seen the lawsuit and declined to comment.

According to the lawsuit, the student's art teacher asked his class in February to draw landscapes. The student, a senior identified in the lawsuit by the initials A.P., added a cross and the words "John 3:16 A sign of love" in his drawing.

His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were making remarks about it. He refused, and she gave him a zero on the project.

Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.

The boy tore the policy up in front of Millin, who kicked him out of class. Later that day, assistant principal Cale Jackson told the boy his religious expression infringed on other students' rights.

Jackson told the boy, his stepfather and his pastor at a meeting a week later that religious expression could be legally censored in class assignments. Millin stated at the meeting the cross in the drawing also infringed on other students' rights.

The boy received two detentions for tearing up the policy. Jackson referred questions about the lawsuit to Gaarder.

Sometime after that meeting, the boy's metals teacher rejected his idea to build a chain-mail cross, telling him it was religious and could offend someone, the lawsuit claims. The boy decided in March to shelve plans to make a pin with the words "pray" and "praise" on it because he was afraid he'd get a zero for a grade.

The lawsuit also alleges school officials allow other religious items and artwork to be displayed on campus.

A Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom, the lawsuit claims, adding the teacher passionately teaches Hindu principles to students.

In addition, a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance, a picture of a six-limbed Hindu deity is in the school's hallway and a drawing of a robed sorcerer hangs on a hallway bulletin board.

Drawings of Medusa, the Grim Reaper with a scythe and a being with a horned head and protruding tongue hang in the art room and demonic masks are displayed in the metals room, the lawsuit alleges.

A.P. suffered unequal treatment because of his religion even though student expression is protected by the First Amendment, according to the lawsuit, which was filed Friday.

"Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate," the lawsuit said. "No compelling state interest exists to justify the censorship of A.P.'s religious expression."

[Soldier4Christ]

Superintendent's orders
to worried dad: Butt out!
Elementary lessons on 'gay' issues
now tied to reading, social studies

The superintendent of a public school that sparked a federal lawsuit by teaching homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten has told another worried parent he can review course material, but he has no right to withdraw his child from class during lessons.

The lawsuit, on which WND has reported extensively, was filed by David Parker, whose child was in a class at Estabrook Elementary in  Lexington, Mass.

Parker's strenuous objection to not being notified when lessons concerning homosexuality were presented landed him in jail overnight. His subsequent lawsuit resulted in a court verdict that essentially concludes parents have no rights to control what their children are taught.

The court ruling adopted the arguments submitted by several pro-homosexual organizations that stated they had rights to children in public schools. However, Parker has confirmed for WND the case is being prepared for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court because of the far-reaching impacts of the ruling.

Unless the case is overturned, Parker told WND, "it now would allow teachers in elementary schools to influence children into any views they wanted to, behind the backs of parents, to a captive audience, and against the will of the parents if need be."

In the latest confrontation, publicized by the traditional values advocates at Mass Resistance, Lexington Supt. Paul Ash told a parent who also wanted to be advised when homosexuality was being taught to children that the school would not cooperate.

"We are not required to inform parents in advance of teaching units that include same gender parents or required to release students when such topics are discussed," Ash told the parent in an e-mail posted by Mass Resistance. "The appeals court dismissed the claim that parents have a right to require the school provide advance notice or the right to remove their children.

"In addition, the school committee has decided that teachers must be able to teach topics they feel are appropriate without the requirement parents be notified in advance," Ash wrote.

The e-mail was in response to parent Shawn Landon's request to be notified when such material would be promoted. His concerns, in return, followed an announcement from the school that it was "creating an inclusive environment and embracing diversity" by expanding its promotions of such alternative lifestyles.

"A group of administrators, teachers, and community members formed the 'Windows and Mirrors' subcommittee to develop a comprehensive, inclusive K-5 Diversity curriculum … [which] promotes acceptance and understanding of the diversity of our town, country, and world, and includes both historical lessons on civil rights and contemporary lessons of families," Ash had announced.

Those "contemporary lessons of families," Ash continued, will include a focus on "gay and lesbian parents."

Landon, after getting word of the school's plans, wrote Martha Batten, Estabrook principal, "I will absolutely require prior notification to any discussion, education, training, reading or anything at all related (even remotely) to homosexuality. It is quite clear by the e-mail I just received that you have a very specific agenda and my family will be exercising our rights to be notified and not to participate. This goes against everything we believe and practice…"

Batten forwarded the e-mail to Ash, who responded that the court's have "established Lexington's right" to teach diversity units, including stories that show same gender parents. He also said there's no need for the schools to let parents know, or even to permit parents to withdraw their children if they would somehow happen to find out.

He did offer a solution: Landon could review the material ahead of time, so he would know what indoctrination would be presented at some later point.

"If your child happens to be placed in a class with a teacher who will be teaching the four of five diversity units, you will then know what will be taught and will be able to talk to your son or daughter about the topics at home," the superintendent said.

Landon responded with his "disappointment."

"Your complete rejection of my basic rights as a parent is nothing less than outrageous and discriminatory," he said. "It is entirely unacceptable. I must insist that I be notified prior to my child being exposed to this horribly offensive material."

"Good for you, Mr. Landon!" officials at Mass Resistance posted. "It's about time more people stood up and were counted. It's actually amazing and outrageous that people like Paul Ash … are allowed to be educators… What kind of human beings would do this to parents and children?"

Parker and his lawyers say they will be seeking permission to submit the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court over such indoctrination.

Parker said the ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals essentially concluded that it is no burden on parents' free exercise of religion to have their children taught ideas at a public school that violate the parents' religious teachings.

"But that ignores the fact that the most basic free exercise is your teaching your children right from wrong in their formative years," he said. "That is completely being undermined by the rulings of these federal courts so far.

"Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]" he said. "It's not just exposure to an idea, to the [offensive] books, It's the teacher's manipulating the mind of children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the teacher happens to believe it's a good ideology.

"It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of little children," Parker said. "Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars.

"Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely of national significance. No parent wants to put their very little children in positions in which they're minds are being used as battlegrounds," he said.

He warned pursuit of such agendas would cause public schools to implode. That's an issue that California already is facing, as WND has reported. There, a coalition of organizations is encouraging parents and providing resources for them to be able to remove their children from public schools. The coalition's goal is to take 600,000 children from California's public districts, because of a new state law there requiring indoctrination that not only is pro-homosexual, but also affirms bisexuality, transsexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

"The human secularist religion of the [National Education Association,] buttressed by the power of the state, will now turn public schools into the next secular synagogues," Parker said. "[They say], 'We're just preparing the kids to be citizens.' But it's a religion. It is a devious and evil form of religion."

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Lexington, Mass., school district can teach children contrary ideas without violating their parents' rights to exercise religious beliefs.

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

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

Parker said if this topic is approved, why not any other topic, up to and including Nazism?

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

[Soldier4Christ]

Prof to student: Keep the faith, lose the grade
Teacher thinks it's his job to get class to change personal beliefs

A community college in New York has been presented with a demand letter from the American Center for Law and Justice to halt a professor's classroom practices that allegedly have damaged at least one student – so far.

The letter from the ACLJ targets Suffolk County Community College and will be the prelude to a federal lawsuit if the issue isn't resolved, the organization said.

At issue is a professor's demand that students "change their own personal viewpoints or state that they are unsure of whether their own personal beliefs are correct" on religious issues, according to the letter.

That is an expression of hostility to religion, the letter explains.

The ACLJ said it is representing Gina DeLuca, a student who has been punished with lower grades and has been labeled "closed-minded" by a professor, who remained unidentified in the letter, because he demands that students acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in his philosophy class, which is required for graduation.

"The ACLJ has sent a letter demanding that the school end its discriminatory actions against DeLuca or face a federal lawsuit," the organization's announcement said.

"This is another trouble example of how some in the academic world believe it's acceptable to violate the First Amendment rights afforded to all students, especially students who hold Christian beliefs," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.

"The actions by this professor clearly reflect hostility toward religion. To require students to acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in a class is not only wrong, but clearly violates the constitutional rights of students who hold religious beliefs," he said. "Unless this school takes corrective action, we will go to federal court to protect the rights of our client."

Attempts by WND to reach the school for comment were unsuccessful.

In the letter to Suffolk County Attorney Christine Malafi, the ACLJ explained the problem started when DeLuca took the required philosophy class. She's been a student at the school for two years, and holds a 3.9 grade point average. She even got good grades in the philosophy class "until her religious beliefs became known," the organization said.

"The grades she received on class assignments dropped significantly once God and religion became prominent topics of class discussion and her refusal to compromise her Christian faith became apparent," the ACLJ said. "This is because the course goes beyond merely requiring knowledge of prominent philosophers and their arguments or ways of thinking, which Gina does not object to."

In addition to the lower grades, the ACLJ said, the professor has called the student "closed-minded," "uncritical," "hurtful," and "blinded by belief."

"While a college professor may encourage students to be informed about viewpoints and arguments that differ from their own, it is inappropriate – and unconstitutional – for a public college professor to make passing a required course (and thus graduation) contingent upon a student's willingness to express agreement with philosophical viewpoints that conflict with her religious beliefs," the ACLJ said.

The school now has a deadline of April 14 to meet the requirements of the letter, the ACLJ said.

The law firm that specializes in constitutional issues also has launched an online petition to demand the college discontinue its denial of the student's First Amendment rights.

[Soldier4Christ]

Christian photographers fined for refusing same-sex ceremony
State hits couple with $6,600 penalty for violating anti-discrimination law

The state of New Mexico has ordered a family owned photography company to pay more than $6,600 for declining a demand to take pictures at a same-sex ceremony, and a lawyer who is working on an appeal says it is an example of how "non-discrimination" or "hate" laws can be weapons in the hands of homosexual activists.

"The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate there conscience," said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is working on an appeal.

"The commission's decision shows stunning disregard for our client's First Amendment rights, and we will appeal…," he said.

The case before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission was brought by Vanessa Willock against Elane Photography LLC, which is run by owners Jon and Elaine Huguenin.

The couple that included Willock approached Elaine Huguenin and wanted the Huguenins to photograph a "commitment ceremony" the women wanted to hold.

"Huguenin declined because her Christian believes are in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony," according to the law firm.

Willock then alleged she was a victim of "discrimination" because of her sexual orientation, and brought the complaint before the state agency.

In its ruling this week, the commission found: "Complainant, Vanessa Willock, proved her discrimination claim based on sexual orientation. The Complainant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent, Elane Photography, LLC, discriminated against her because of sexual orientation, in violation of … the New Mexico Human Rights Act."

The Christian couple was ordered to pay Willock $6,637.94.

The ADF, however, said the case will be appealed because of the significance of the constitutional issue at stake.

"The constitutional right of Americans to refrain from participating in a ceremony or other event because their sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with its message is at stake," the organization said. "Christians could be forced to advocate for viewpoints with which they disagree or to participate in events that violate their conscience."

Lorence told OneNewsNow that New Mexico's state law is similar to laws in 19 other states, as well as the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and if such precedents aren't overturned, they could be used to silence biblical Christianity.

"There is a great threat to our religious liberties and our ability to speak out in favor of traditional marriage when these non-discrimination laws are interpreted in such a harsh way to censor Christians and others," he said.

The AFD noted that the "commitment ceremony" was proposed to be held in Taos, N.M., despite the fact neither marriage nor civil unions are legal for members of the same sex in New Mexico.

"The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood," said Lorence. "Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate."

WND reported earlier on a plan that would impose such "non-discrimination" requirements on the nation.

The congressional proposal, H.R. 3685, failed. But the Employment Non-Discrimination Act plan would have given special privileges to "gay" and "transgendered" individuals.

"If passed, the bill would grant special employment rights and protected minority status to individuals who define themselves based upon chosen sexual behaviors," said Matt Barber, a policy analyst with Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest public policy women's group.

"It would force employers to abandon their First Amendment civil rights at the workplace door," he said.

President Bush, before the bill's support fell short in Congress, had suggested it likely would be vetoed because it would have raised "concerns on constitutional and policy grounds."

The White House "policy statement" on the issue said H.R. 3685 would extend employment-discrimination provisions to set up "a comprehensive federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

But the White House said the plan was "inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Act prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible.

The White House said the issue involves such "imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult. For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on 'perceived' sexual orientation, or 'association' with individuals of a particular sexual orientation."

However, various local governments already have approved such regulations, ADF said.

[Soldier4Christ]

War rages over accuracy of Bible curriculum
$50 text says 'God's help comes with strings'

A war has erupted over teaching the Bible in public schools across the United States, not whether to teach it but how it should be taught: by using the Bible itself or whether it should be accompanied by a committee-written text that costs $50 each that teaches "God's help comes with strings attached."

The issue is raging now before the state Legislature in Tennessee as well as in other states, where officials have begun joining the move towards teaching more about religion, especially Christianity, although trying to remain constitutional by not teaching students to be religious.

The Tennessee situation was addressed recently by state Sen. Scott Beason of Alabama, whose own lawmaking body rejected a recent proposal to mandate use in that state of the Bible Literacy Project's "The Bible and its Influence." The work has been suggested as mandatory for public school students by Democrats in several states already.

In a separate column published on WND, Beason describes his concerns over that curriculum, which he says advocates cultic philosophy and undermines biblical teachings by suggesting the Ark of the Covenant is "famous in Western imagination."

He also accuses Charles Haynes, of the First Amendment Center, of contributing to and promoting a book that misquoted the Mayflower Compact by leaving out "Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and the Advancement of the Christian Faith."

To WND, Haynes defended the book, saying a lot of people from a lot of backgrounds reviewed it.

"No textbook is perfect. I don't think it's perfect. I think it has a lot of good things. Do I think it misrepresents the Bible? I don't think so," he said today.

He cited Chuck Colson, adviser to President Richard Nixon during the Watergate debacle and now the powerful Christian founder of a number of Christian ministries, as an endorser of the book. But then so was Ted Haggard, former chief of National Association of Evangelicals, who resigned in disgrace from his Colorado megachurch after being accused of homosexual activity.

Haynes told WND the book's goal was to find "common ground" for people of different beliefs to meet and discuss.

"I have worked with people on all sides," he told WND.

But the book "doesn't take sides," he said. "It's very important to try to come together… There are ways to work across our differences for the common good."

Critics of the book, however, believe such "coming together" actually may be surrender to the enemy in a number of culture battle fronts, pointing out Haynes previously worked with organizations such as the aggressively pro-homosexual organization Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, and has pooh-poohed the idea that a national "hate crimes" plan in the United States in any way threatens Christians.

Haynes also equated the religious objections Muslim cab drivers have to carrying passengers who have alcohol or dogs with them to religious objections from Christian pharmacists who don't want to dispense abortion-causing medications.

GLSEN is the organization that promotes the "Day of Silence" advocacy event to recognize "discrimination" against homosexuals in public schools across the nation in each.

Beason criticized Haynes for writing an article, "When the Government Prays, No One Wins," "in which he infers that the National Day of Prayer should be declared illegal." Beason also charges that Hayne serves on the Board of the Pluralism Project, "along with a Wiccan high priestess, Margot Adler."

He further says Haynes authored a "Communitarian manifesto on religious education" that follows the teachings of occultist Georg Hegel, whose philosophy is used to "shape the people's thoughts and morph the masses to a new kind of community."

"It works!" Beason wrote. "This process transforms individual thinkers into group thinkers. Since the sense of belonging feels good, the threat of group disapproval inhibits members from voicing divisive views.

Beason also noted the late Dr. D. James Kennedy wrote in a letter about such perspectives: "… It would be a tremendous mistake to impose such very anti-biblical material upon our children in public schools."

And he said Dr. John Hagee also was critical of the book: "My overview of 'The Bible and Its Influence' is that this is a masterful work of deception, distortion and outright falsehoods," Hagee wrote.

There have been other critics, too.

Author Berit Kjos said the book redefines biblical terms and demeans God, through questions such as: "Do absolute good and evil exist?" and links the Bible to communism by asking: "Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) stated in his novel The Brothers Karamazow, 'If there is no God, then all things are permitted.' Find this passage and read it in context. Then, write a short story about a world in which all things are permitted."

A review of Haynes' own writings revealed that he called the election of Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, "a symbol of hope – and a source of controversy."

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

He called warnings from U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., about Muslims "bigoted and un-American."

"Let's pause, then, to salute that much-maligned concept, 'diversity.' Far from being a threat to American values, the religious diversity of immigrants has moved us closer to realizing our ideals," he wrote.

Haynes also was harshly critical when Republicans in the Georgia Legislature rejected a "first-in-the-nation" plan calling for Bible electives, specifically "The Bible and Its Influences," to be taught in Georgia's public schools.

"It started in Alabama, where Democrats in that Legislature proposed Bible electives that would use a new textbook, 'The Bible and Its Influence,' published by the Bible Literacy Project. Because the textbook has broad support from Jews and Christians, was reviewed by 41 scholars (disclosure: I was one of the reviewers), and successfully field-tested, the Democrats saw this as a golden opportunity to do something both religion-friendly and constitutional," he said.

"Not surprisingly, Alabama Republicans weren't about to let Democrats steal their biblical thunder. Although in the minority, GOP legislators have thus far managed to block passage of the Democrats' bill," he wrote. "Georgia is a different story. Once again, the Democrats went first, proposing Bible electives using 'The Bible and Its Influence.' Once again, Republicans fought back, accusing the Democrats of 'trying to put a wolf in sheep's clothing.' Since GOP lawmakers control both legislative houses, they scuttled the Democratic bill and passed an alternative."

He said the issue is "really about how public schools should teach about the Bible."

And he criticized harshly an alternative plan, an approach that simply uses the Bible as a text, supported by the National Council on Bible Curriculum.

Elizabeth Ridenour, a spokeswoman for that organization, declined to offer criticism of other programs, saying that wasn't her goal.

But Beason wasn't so reluctant.

Some of the teachings in "The Bible and Its Influence" aren't appropriate for school children, he said. Further, supporters, he said, "see it as an opportunity to dupe the public into thinking we're teaching the Bible in schools."

He cited a reference to labor organization Cesar Chavez being described in an Old Testament minor prophet because he was fighting for social justice.

Wiley Drake, who was serving as the second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, also issued a series of criticisms about "The Bible and Its Influences."

"Page 29 reads 'other origin stores tell of many gods who are created, etc.' Hagee says this 'plants the concept in the mind of children that polytheism in just as acceptable as monotheism, which is contrary to the Bible,'" he noted.

Another original passage described God creating the world "out of welter and waste" and leaves an incorrect interpretation of creation, he said.

Nancy Manno, co-host of the radio talk show "In Great Company," also has been critical of Haynes' promotion of the book.

"Haynes' background as a former employee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and his close association with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Communitarian Network undoubtedly have shaped his viewpoint on religion in the public square," she wrote.

Actor and WND columnist Chuck Norris has endorsed the National Council on Bible Curriculum, which cites quotations from historic American leaders including Horace Greeley, who said, "It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people."

Norris said more than 1,300 schools in 37 states offer the program.

"The Bible and Its Influence," on the other hand, has been endorsed by the Associated Press and Time Magazine.

Kjos, however, said whatever else the book may be, it is inaccurate.

"Page 215: 'Parable. Jesus taught with parables to put his message about God's reign into language that all his hearers would grasp immediately.'" she cited. "That's not true! His parables would hide the truth from the world, not simplify or expose it."

She cited Matt. 13:10-13: "And the disciples came and said to Him, 'Why do You speak to them in parables?' He answered and said to them, 'Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. ... Therefore I speak to them in parables....'"

And she worried about the pagan influences, because it says: "Muslims honor Abraham as the first monotheist, worshipper of the one true God they call Allah.... This shared respect for Abraham makes the long-standing conflicts among Jews, Christians, and Muslims – from the medieval crusades to today's Middle Easter clashes – surprising on one hand and understandable on the other."

There's "no mention of Muhammad's bloody jihads and destruction of Christian communities around the Mediterranean – from Spain to India," she said.

She said the original version also made fun of the Bible, quoting, "Page 117: 'You've probably seen cartoon or movie depictions of the prophet of doom, a shaggy bearded individual in ragged robes, ranting from a soapbox or wearing a sandwich board sign that reads, 'The end is near.'"