News & Media

Advocates also filed an appeal on behalf of Chad Farnan, now a senior at Capistrano Valley High School, arguing that the judge’s ruling should be reconsidered and broadened.  The judge ruled that only one of Dr. Corbett’s statements was a violation of the Establishment Clause, despite the fact that Advocates’ attorneys presented many other statements to the court.  We believe the other statements made by Dr. Corbett show that there is more than one instance of hostility against Christianity in the classroom… a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.  

 

This came as a shock to many students and their parents in the San Rafael City Schools. Advocates for Faith and Freedom received a call for assistance from one bold parent who is willing to fight against the attempted brainwashing of her children. This parent has officially objected to the posting of these signs in a formal complaint made to the School District in which she argued that such signs are in violation of the California Education Code because they discriminate against those who might express a viewpoint in opposition to homosexuality. Since the term “homophobia,” is defined by the District as “discrimination against homosexual people,” our client requested that the District provide clarification as to what types of statements would be considered “discriminatory” or “homophobic.”

Our client then provided the District with three sample statements and asked the District whether the statements would be in violation of the “No Room For Homophobia” signs. These statements included: (1) “Homosexuality is wrong and unnatural because biologically it takes a male and female to naturally reproduce in order to bring a child into this world,” (2) “Reparative treatments have [been shown] to help people struggling with homosexuality to overcome their homosexuality,” and (3) “Homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible.” Despite our client’s inquiry, the District refused to answer her question and simply argued that the signs were proper under California law.

Apparently, students holding a traditional Judeo-Christian viewpoint on homosexual behavior may be considered “homophobic” in the San Rafael City Schools. The “No Room for Homophobia” signs may force students of faith to either remain silent in their beliefs or potentially be subjected to discipline by the District should they choose to voice their opposition to homosexual behavior.

Our client has appealed the District’s decision regarding these signs to the California Department of Education in hope that the District will be forced to remove the signs from the classrooms. Advocates for Faith and Freedom will continue to assist this courageous parent in her attempt to have the signs removed and will monitor the situation to protect any students who may subjected to adverse action by the District.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts! To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

The problem, however, is that the proposed legislation requires that both the public and private-sector health care providers offer their customers plans with “essential benefits.”  While the bills currently before Congress do not specify whether abortion will be considered an “essential benefit,” many Republicans and pro-life activists believe that unless abortions are specifically excluded from the proposed legislation, abortion will likely be included as an “essential benefit.”  This belief is consistent with the fact that courts and administrative agencies historically interpret federal statutes to include abortions where there is not an express statement for their exclusion.

Thus, if Congress fails to exclude abortions from the mandated health care coverage, American citizens’ tax dollars will be used to directly subsidize a public health-care plan that provides coverage for abortions.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed a "friend of the court" brief with the United States Supreme Court supporting both the Cross and the sacrifice it represents.

The Mojave Desert Cross was erected in 1934 on property that was then owned by a private organization known as the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The property was later deeded to the National Park Service. In 2001, the ACLU sued the National Park Service arguing the Cross was unconstitutional because it sat on federal land and other permanent religious memorials had not been placed on the property. The ACLU argued the federal government was showing favoritism to the Christian symbol.

In 2004, the government transferred the one acre of land the Cross stood on back to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in exchange for five acres of land elsewhere in the Mojave Desert. Nevertheless, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, and the Cross remains covered by a plywood box. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.

“Every man and woman who fought our nation’s wars and died in service is remembered in local, state and national war memorials,” the brief reads. “It is disheartening to think that these memorials may be gutted because there are those who ignore the unique way the cross has universally honored the choice our soldiers made to lay down their lives for the good of the rest of us.”

Advocates for Faith and Freedom recognizes the importance of upholding the memory and sacrifice of the veterans which the memorial embodies. Countless other veterans’ memorials across the country will be endangered if the ACLU succeeds in dismantling the Mojave Desert Cross. In a similar battle spanning 18 years, Advocates has filed multiple briefs in support of San Diego’s Mount Soledad Cross. The ACLU appealed that case to the Ninth Circuit after a San Diego, California, federal judge threw out the ACLU’s case.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturns rulings from the Ninth Circuit more often than any other Circuit in the country. We have hope that the Supreme Court will recognize the error in the lower courts’ rulings and preserve our religious heritage by recognizing the Mojave Desert Cross as a proper memorial for our fallen soldiers. Until then, the Cross will remain covered by a plywood box.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts! To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

In San Diego, California, a pastor was recently approached by a county code enforcement officer regarding a weekly Bible study held at his home.  The official then issued an Administrative Citation Warning and a Cease and Desist Order barring the pastor and his wife from holding any further Bible studies at their home until they obtained a major use permit.  This type of permit costs several thousand dollars and is not required for home-based bible studies.  With the help of an allied attorney, Dean Broyles, the pastor fought the county and won!

The San Diego City Counsel and its Chief Administrative Officer, Walter F. Ekard, have recognized the county’s mistake and have rescinded the citation.  Mr. Ekard apologized to the pastor and his church stating,  "Review of the situation shows that no administrative citation warning should have been issued and that a major use permit is not required for the Bible study you have in your home."  The pastor and his wife took a courageous and all too necessary stand.   

Another incident of government intrusion on religious liberty occurred in Los Angeles, CA. A student attending the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) was denied the right to thank Jesus during a personal statement which was to be read aloud during her graduation ceremony. Christina Popa, along with several other students, were awarded the honor of having their personal statements read aloud at the University’s commencement ceremony.  However, during the review process, she was told by a faculty advisor that she could not thank “Jesus” in her statement and instead would have to thank “God” because thanking “Jesus” might be offensive.  Ms. Popa made the denial of her First Amendment rights known to the UCLA chancellor, Gene Block, who quickly rectified the situation. Ms. Popa will now be allowed to thank Jesus at the UCLA graduation ceremony this coming Saturday.

These two occurrences are evidence of both the frequency and ease with which a Government official can unlawfully infringe upon one's religious liberties.  It is important we continue to fight for our constitutionally guaranteed rights.  In the two instances above and countless Advocates cases, individuals have taken a stand and, in doing so, fought for the religious liberty each of us cherishes.  Advocates seeks to effect positive change in law and culture, one case at a time. 

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Several years ago, Pastor Derek Anunciation, Senior Pastor of Praise Christian Center, came to us with an impassioned plea for assistance.  His church was small but growing and needed space to meet while they built up their membership and presence in Huntington Beach, California.  However, when Pastor Anunciation asked for permission to rent a building to hold church services, the City of Huntington Beach imposed arbitrary and burdensome conditions in an apparent attempt to prevent the church from actually occupying the building.  As a result, the Church was forced to find an alternative place to hold services.

Advocates’ attorneys then brought a lawsuit against the City of Huntington Beach arguing that the conditions applied to Praise Christian Center were excessive, arbitrary, and disproportionate to conditions imposed on other businesses.  The district court ruled that the City's sign ordinance was unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, the Court also ruled against the Church as to the excessive conditions. 

Advocates’ attorneys then appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that the District Court erred in reviewing the evidence.  In February of 2008, Advocates’ attorneys argued the case before the Ninth Circuit and cited a federal statute designed to assure that churches are treated equally with secular assemblies when city officials apply building and zoning restrictions.   

On May 11, 2009, after a fourteen-month waiting period, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finally issued a 1 ½ page opinion that dismissed the case!!  Advocates attorneys are now demanding that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reconsider its decision.  The decision may be reviewed by the three judges who initially dismissed the case or by a large panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

    

 In a 6-1 decision, the Court held that the state constitutional amendment effected by passage of Proposition 8 was valid.  Despite the Court’s decision to uphold Proposition 8, it refused to acknowledge the breadth and scope of its language by stating that the same-sex unions that occurred prior to its passage are valid.  Proposition 8, a grassroots effort to respond to the Court’s overturning of Proposition 22, is a voter  initiative passed last fall by a majority of California voters, who wished to define – for the second time – marriage in California as only between a man and a woman.

Advocates for Faith & Freedom filed an amicus brief ("friend of the court brief") with the California Supreme Court on January 15, 2009, to defend Prop 8 and to preserve the will of the people.  The brief was filed on behalf of the California Family Council, the California Republican Attorney's Association, as well as numerous members of the California Senate and Assembly. 

In response to the ruling Robert Tyler, General Counsel for Advocates, offered, “The Court’s decision is a victory for the people of California and their desire to protect the traditional definition of marriage.”

Jennifer Monk, Associate General Counsel for Advocates, stated, “Whether supportive of or in opposition to Proposition 8, the people of California should be pleased that the generally activist California Supreme Court has today shown respect for the democratic process and has upheld the will of the voters.”

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice George stated, "Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question . . . . [O]ur role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."  In describing the issue before the Court, the Chief Justice stated, "[T]he principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution . . . . [W]e conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision."

The Court’s decision decisively answered what the proper role of the judiciary was in light of the clearly expressed will of the people.  Following the Court’s decision, Prop 8 was challenged again through the filing of a federal lawsuit stating that the amendment to the California Constitution violates the United States Constitution. 

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

 During a weekend interview with the Michigan Messenger, Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, was questioned as to whether the votes were there to repeal this federal law.  Conyers stated the following:“[w]ell in my committee, yes, but in the House and Senate, that's a different question."

The Defense of Marriage Act was initially passed by Congress with a vote of 85 to 14 in the Senate and a vote of 342 to 67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.   In order for this law to be overturned in the House and Senate, the House Judiciary Committee would have to be the first to approve a Defense of Marriage Act repeal bill. 

Since the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, many states have given same-sex couples a right to marry through the states’ judiciary and legislative branches.  The repeal of DOMA could force all states to treat same-sex relationships as a marriage, if the relationship is considered a marriage in any other state.  This could have devastating consequences for states, such as California, that have defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

 

isiana Governor.

Currently, the Louisiana Constitution provides that “no law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Supporters of House Bill 430 believe that this language is insufficient to fully protect the exercise of religious beliefs.  House Bill 430 would modify the current language of the free exercise clause to now provide that “[n]o law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting any religious belief.”  The Bill also seeks to guarantee “the right of every person to freely express his sincerely held religious belief and to engage in or refrain from activity based on a sincerely held religious belief.”  

Furthermore, House Bill 430 would make it more difficult for the government to burden an individual’s free exercise of their religion by forcing the government to prove that they have a compelling governmental interest in infringing upon a specific expression, act, or refusal to act based on a sincerely held religious conviction.  Cameron Henry believes the original intent of Louisiana citizens who approved the 1974 Constitution has been weakened and that this amendment is now needed to protect Louisiana’s citizens’ religious liberties to the extent originally intended.

The Bill is currently before the Committee on Civil Law and Procedure.  Should House Bill 430 become law, the proposed amendment will be submitted to the voters of the State of Louisiana at the statewide election to be held on November 2, 2010.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

In 1775, the Continental Congress designated a specific time for prayer in forming our new Nation.  Then, in 1952, President Harry Truman signed a bill requiring each subsequent President to declare a National Day of Prayer each year on an appropriate day of their choice.  In 1988, President Ronald Regan amended the law to permanently designate the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer.

The National Day of Prayer Task Force, a non-government organization, coordinates the events for evangelical Christians on this day.  The theme for this year is “Prayer... America’s Hope” and is based on the verse from Psalm 33:22: “May your unfailing love rest upon us, O Lord, even as we put our hope in you.”  The Task Force expects that there will be more than 35,000 prayer gatherings across the United States and over 40,000 volunteers participating in the events scheduled to occur on the National Prayer Day.

President Obama, however, has decided to forgo the traditional public ceremony honoring the National Day of Prayer and will instead issue only a written proclamation.  Rather than paying tribute to the day, White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, stated that the President will pray privately “as he does every day.”

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.