Religious Rights

In what seems like a more and more familiar tale, a high school teacher in San Diego was told by his school board that he could no longer hang signs or banners in his classroom with phrases like "One Nation Under God", "In God We Trust", or "God Bless America". In fact, even a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator", was put on the school district's naughty list.

And it's not as though this was a new thing.  It turns out that the teach in question, Bradley Johnson, had been putting up such signs in his classroom for over twenty-five years without complaint.  San Diego's Ponway Unified School District leadership complained that the signs "over-emphasized" God, "conveyed a Judeo-Christian viewpoint", and that they might "offend" others.  At the same time, teachers in the district were allowed to display signage celebrating or promoting other things, such as gay rights.

We fail to see why anyone (least of all Americans) should be "offended" by things like our national motto or Declaration of Independence.  And, believe it or not, a federal judge in the liberal 9th Circuit agreed.  read more »

This is a story that's both hard to believe and not hard to believe at the same time.

It seems that this past Saturday, a woman who had participated in the March for Life in Washington was told by security guards that she had to remove her pro-life pin that she had on from the march before she entered the building.  She was told that you can't wear religious or political items in a federal building.  (??) Via Lifenews:

...after searching her bag, two guards at the Gallery told her, "You're good to go in, but first you need to remove that pro-life pin.”

"He was indicating the small lime green pin with the message 'impact73.org' and the silhouette of a small hand inside that of a larger hand that I had attached to the lapel of my coat," Duke writes today.

"The pin, they informed me, was a 'religious symbol' and a symbol of a particular political cause and it could not be worn inside a federal building," Duke continues.

"Why, I asked, can I not wear a religious or political symbol inside a federal building? Bringing to bear the full weight of the supreme law of the land, the guards informed that it was a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: The combination of me, wearing a pro-life pin, in a federal building was a violation of the separation of church and state," she explained.  read more »

Over the years, Christians and conservatives have lost a number of (what were once considered) liberties via our over-active judiciary.  A trend that has become so strong that many times the mere threat of lawsuit by groups such as the ACLU would result in another loss.  But things are changing.  At least in terms a more successful conservative focus on using the judiciary as a weapon in the culture wars as well.

An example of a recent success comes from North Carolina, where a high school student was prohibited from wearing a shirt with a pro-life message and distributing literature.  One legal letter (and one the threat of a lawsuit one would guess) and the school district backed down.

From the story:

A North Carolina high school is backing down after a pro-life legal group helped a pro-life student who faced a revocation of her free speech rights. Brianna Cardwell wanted to participate in the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity sponsored by Stand True Ministries.

The day is an opportunity for students to wear red tape or armbands to show their solidarity with unborn children who can't speak for themselves.

It features pro-life t-shirts and fliers explaining how abortion kills unborn children and has adversely impacted society.  read more »

Should Christian clubs or oganizations be forced to accept non-Christian members?  That's essentially the question that the US Supreme Court is about to take up.

And it's a question that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the wrong answer to recently... ruling that Christian clubs at universities could not be officially recognized by those schools unless they open up to non-Christian voting members - and even leaders.

Go figure.

The Washington Examiner puts it this way:

Think of it this way: Should a Young Democrats club on a university
campus be compelled to elect Republican officers? Should a student
chapter of PETA be forced to be led by an ardent hunter and taxidermist?

The case revolves around that fact that the group Christian Legal Society has rules that require that its officers and members sign a statement attesting to their Christian faith.  (Imagine!)  Hastings University says they can't do that.  And the Ninth Circuit agreed.  But in a similar case from Chicago, a federal court took the side of the local branch of the same group.  Which brings us to an important test of the 1st Amendment.

I smell another five to four decision in the offing.

A 3rd grade student in New Jersey was recently admonished by her teacher for reading her Bible during class quiet time.  The teacher told the girl that the Bible was not "appropriate reading material" and ordered her to put it away.  The girl then put it in her desk, but the teacher told her she had to put it "in her backpack", (to take it back home).

And, if that weren't bad enough, when the girls mother found out about it, she went to the teacher to complain and, getting no where), went to the school's principal - who backed up the teacher in saying that was "school policy".

The mother finally found someone with some sense when she went to the school district, where she was told the school was wrong and it's fine for her child to bring (and read) the Bible at school.  (The mother wants something in writing...and who can blame her).

And from Massachusetts we have a similar issue where the father of an eight year old boy says his son was sent home from school after he drew a picture showing Jesus on a cross.  After complaining about it and the story became public, the father, who works for the school district as a custodian, has had his hours cut.  And before the kid was "cleared" to go back to school, he was "evaluated" to make sure he wasn't a "threat" to himself or others.  From the story:  read more »

A nurse in New York has filed a lawsuit against Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, after being forced to assist in a late second-trimester abortion.  The hospital knew of her objections and essentially told her she would be fired otherwise.  Specifically, she would be charged with "insubordination and patient abandonment", leading to a possible loss of her job and her license as a nurse.

The woman's attorney stated:

"We're seeing more and more cases where pro-life health workers are facing requirements to assist in abortions against their rights of conscience."

Of course, this comes against the backdrop of the Democrats' attempt to have the federal government take over much of the health care industry in America, which, by definition, includes the people who actually practice medicine.  What kind of protection will those individuals be afforded to avoid doing things that violate their conscious or religious beliefs?  Such as, in this case, abortion, or even doctor assisted suicide - or straight out Euthanasia?

The short answer seems to be little.  Obama himself promised a "robust conscious clause", but this is the same President who used his authority to rescind such protections for medical practitioners that was put in place buy the Bush administration.

And Congress has already had an opportunity to extends such protection as part of the ongoing heath care debate and chose not to.  Specifically, the House rejected an amendment which would have done just that.  read more »

In a preview of what a stronger European Union government will look like when it comes to religious freedom, Italians were stunned to hear that the European Court of Human Rights ruled that they had been violating the "religious and educational rights" of their children for generations by forcing them to attend school in classrooms with crucifixes hanging on their walls.

The court's decision came about as a result of a 2002 complaint:

...a Finnish-born mother of two children in the Italian school system objected to the crucifixes in their classrooms. The school principal was unmoved. Italy's Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint. So she filed a case in Strasbourg, France, and now she's won.

The Euro court's ruling hasn't exactly had the intended effect.  In fact, quite the opposite.

The response? Outrage, a swelling popular rebellion, even, against the prospect that because of one woman's agitation, the entire country may have to rid its schools of a treasured symbol that as much bespeaks Italian cultural identity as it does Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Mayors and town councils across Italy are not only refusing to remove crucifixes from their schools, but are buying new ones and putting them up in places where they don't already hang.  read more »

The president signed into law the defense spending bill last week in the White House with the abominable "hate crimes" legislation included in the bill, what many now call "thought crimes" legislation.  This law will eventually lead to the prosecution of clergy who speak out against homosexuality from their pulpits if the experience of similar legislation passed in Canada, Sweden and Great Britain is any guide.   

The First Amendment free speech rights of chaplains in the United States military has already been restricted.  Military chaplains have been harassed and indeed dismissed from military duty because they pray in the name of Jesus.  To remedy this terrible problem, it is imperative that the United States Congress pass Congressman Walter Jones' Military Chaplain Prayer bill.     read more »

Left-wing judicial activism is running amuck in Obamaland.  Nothing illustrates this more than the decision by a left-wing activist judge in New Hampshire who forced a girl home-schooled by her mother into the public school system.   

In the top story on the front page of "The Washington Times" on September 4th, it was reported that New Hampshire District Judge Lucinda V. Sadler dictated to the mother of a 10-year-old home-schooled girl that her daughter was to attend public schools because of the "rigidity" of the mother's religious views.   The New Hampshire judicial tyrant in her ruling said that the little girl needed to consider other worldviews as she matures.     read more »

As if the fear of big-brother needed to be underlined any further among conservative Christians, we have just that by way of  New Hampshire judge ruling ordering a home-schooled girl to spend some time attending a public school due to the "rigidity" of her mother's religious beliefs.  He suggested that the girl needed to broaden her horizons and consider other worldviews.

Excuse me, but it seems to me that the instruction of children when it comes to beliefs and a "worldview" is the sole prerogative of parents and has nothing whatsoever to do with government.  Or at least that's the way it used to be...and that Americans expect it to be.

But here you go...

The girl's mother, Brenda Voydatch, has engaged the Alliance
Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., to
contest the ruling, in which the judge granted a request by the girl's
father, Martin Kurowski, that the girl go to a public school.
 read more »