Friday, February 27, 2009
The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a Utah city, Pleasant Grove, could not be forced to display a monument in their local city park that was dedicated to the religious beliefs of a little-known religious group.
On November 12, 2008, the Justices wrestled with several First Amendment issues in the lawsuit over Pleasant Grove’s decision to reject a monument from Summum, a Salt Lake City based religious group that follows tenets of Gnostic Christianity and ancient Egyptian teachings, including mummification. The religious group argued that Pleasant Grove should be forced to remove existing monuments, including one of the Ten Commandments, from its parks, or, be forced to accept all donated monuments depending on the outcome of a Utah free-speech case heard on November 12, 2008, by the US Supreme Court.
In 1971, Pleasant Grove accepted a Ten Commandments monument built by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and after September 11, 2001, the city allowed the Boy Scouts of America to build a monument to the firefighters and police officers who responded to the terrorist attacks. However, in 2003, Summum was denied an attempt to donate a monument bearing the church’s Seven Aphorisms, a set of principles that are central to the Summum religion.
In 2005, a small religious organization known as Summum filed a lawsuit against Pleasant Grove City, Utah when the City refused to erect a monument containing their beliefs which are known as the “the Seven Aphorisms of Summum.” The City had previously accepted eleven privately donated monuments, including a display of the Ten Commandments, but refused to erect the Summum monument because it did not directly relate to the history of the city. The religious group alleged that the City’s refusal was a violation of their free speech rights because the city had accepted a Ten Commandments monument but rejected their proposed Seven Aphorisms monument. The Supreme Court disagreed!
The Supreme Court held that the placement of a permanent monument in a public park is a form of government speech and the government has control over the message it conveys. Thus, the City is entitled to determine what type of message it intends to communicate to the public through the placement of monuments in the City park. The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Alito, noted that if the City were forced to accept every privately donated monument without regard to the message it conveyed, the park would have to choose to either “’brace themselves for an influx of clutter’ or face the pressure to remove longstanding and cherished monuments.”
If Pleasant Grove was required to either remove all existing monuments or permit the display of every monument that is donated, city governments across America would lose the ability to make decisions as to what message it wishes to portray. Pleasant Grove is simply recognizing the historical significance of the Ten Commandments as the foundation of our laws and the sacrifice made by civil servants on September 11, 2001. We are a Christian nation and our government should not be forced into removing all religiously based monuments respecting our Judeo Christian heritage just to avoid displaying all donated monuments regardless of their message or relevance. The Supreme Court’s ruling respects both our nation’s heritage and Pleasant Grove’s ability to choose what monuments it displays.
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.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
If a new group, “Yes! On Equality”, has its way, Californians may have the opportunity to decide whether to legalize same-sex marriage once again during the 2010 mid-term elections.
“Yes! On Equality” submitted a ballot proposition to the Attorney General’s Office and is hoping to collect enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would remove Prop 8, the voter approved initiative that defines marriage as between one man and one woman in the California Constitution.
Another group called the “Registered Domestic Partnership Act,” wants to change California’s statutes so that the word “marriage” is replaced with “registered domestic partnership.” The idea being that California’s Registered Domestic Partnership law should extend to married couples.
Both groups, however, would halt their effort if the California Supreme Court strikes Prop 8 from the California Constitution. The Court will hear arguments regarding Prop 8 on March 5, 2009.
Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed an Amicus Brief (“friend of the court brief”) with the California Supreme Court on January 15, 2009, in defense of Prop 8 and to preserve the will of the people.
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.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
A sophomore honors student at Capistrano Valley High School, plaintiff Chad Farnan, was a student in Dr. Corbett’s Advanced Placement European History class. The lawsuit filed in Federal District Court against Dr. James Corbett, a teacher in the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD), and the CUSD itself, claims that while teaching the class, Dr. Corbett spends an extended period of time at the beginning of each class discussing topics that are not only irrelevant to history, but also inflammatory and often altogether inappropriate for high school students.
Dr. Corbett has gone as far as stating, “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.” Chad recorded these classes on a digital recorder, and as a result of Dr. Corbett’s hostility toward Christianity, Chad filed this federal lawsuit for a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Dr. Corbett and CUSD filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 10, 2008, the Court issued a ruling clearly rejecting the motion to dismiss allowing the case to proceed forward. The following additional comments made by Dr. Corbett will be introduced into the litigation:
- "Aristotle argued there has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense."
- "We do not invoke the supernatural every time we get stymied. It's okay for religious people to do that, or magicians. There might not be a distinction. What was it that Mark Twain said? He said that religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool."
PLEASE HELP US AS WE
BATTLE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
DONATE to Advocates »
Read a Specia News Report on Fox News with Brit Hume »
Read Bill O'Reilly's comments at Fox News »
View a similar case that occurred in Temecula, CA»
Read more: for additional news stories on Farnan:
Orange County Register 3.10.08
United Press International 3.11.08
One News Now 3.14.08
Photo reproduced with approval from OC Register
Friday, February 13, 2009
The stimulus package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, may contain a provision allowing colleges to obtain federal grant money to repair and renovate their schools under the condition that school facilities are not used for religious purposes such as "sectarian instruction" or "religious worship." Additionally, private colleges may not receive such grants if the school is "subsumed in a religious mission."
The original bill proposed by the House of Representatives included this provision, which has left many religious organizations acrossthe nation fearful of no longer being permitted on college campuses. It is unclear whether this language will be removed prior to the final vote on the stimulus package. Should the provision remain, colleges would only be able to accept funding if they are willing to prohibit the use of their facilities by organizations such as Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship and Campus-Crusade For Christ. Additionally, colleges could be forced to prohibit the use of their facilities for church services on Sundays, as well as bible studies or prayer meetings conducted by their own students.
This provision is clearly unconstitutional as it requires the government to regulate speech based on the message it conveys. Should President Obama sign this bill into law as it is currently written, there is sure to be outrage and potential litigation to stop its enforcement.
"The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. The college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas,' and we break no new constitutional ground in reaffirming this Nation's dedication to safeguarding academic freedom. Among the rights protected by the First Amendment is the right of individuals to associate to further their personal beliefs. " Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972)
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.
Friday, February 6, 2009
A bill requiring domestic partners to be treated the same as spouses narrowly won approval in New Mexico last week. In a 33-31 margin, the New Mexico House of Representatives passed the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act, which grants registered domestic partners the same rights, benefits, duties and responsibilities that state law gives to married couples.
This bill, which allows for legal recognition of same-sex relationships identical to marriage, would have a significant impact on religious liberty and society in general. Additionally, both Washington and New York are considering similar legislation.
Despite the passage of Proposition 8 in California, homosexual advocates are pushing their agenda across the Country. And, with the liberal agenda of our President, it is likely that this battle will rage on many different fronts in the coming years.
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.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a law signed by former President Bill Clinton that would have protected children from sexual material and other objectionable content on the Internet, thus dealing the final blow to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).
The Justice Department has been defending COPA since its passage in 1998, when the ACLU and others filed suit against the censorship law and won an immediate injunction. Since then, the court battle has made its way twice to the Supreme Court, though the government has never won any clear battles in the dispute.
The Supreme Court said it will not consider reviving COPA, which lower federal courts struck down as unconstitutional and considered it to be a violation of the First Amendment.
Supporters of the law called the Courts decision a tragedy. Every family has a challenge to help their children get the best from technology; however, this decision by the Supreme Court makes that challenge far more difficult. This verdict will have far reaching effects on both children and the internet generally.
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.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
January 22, 2009, marked the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the relationship between a woman and her doctor was a private affair, not subject to governmental interference, thereby legalizing abortion.
Written by Justice Harry A. Blackmum, the ruling, Roe v. Wade, declared that the guarantee of liberty in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution extends a right to privacy “beyond enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The ruling also meant that from then on, the decision whether to have an abortion was an individual choice.
The Roe v. Wade decision prompted national debate that continues to this day. President Barack Obama has not wasted any time moving his social issues to the forefront of his “to do” list and is ready to push his pro-abortion agenda. Read the following excerpt from the White House home page:
- Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
To view the President’s official Agenda, click here.
Fortunately, with pro-life legislation and millions of pieces of pro-life educational literature - which allows women to see for themselves that abortion ends the lives of children with hands, feet, and faces - the actual number of abortions performed each year has slowly declined since 1996, although over 1 million abortions are still performed every year.
Advocates for Faith and Freedom is committed to securing the right to life for all unborn children and will vehemently fight to protect the lives of those who cannot protect themselves.
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.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Two pro-life pharmacists in Illinois have been granted legal permission to challenge Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s executive order that forces them to dispense emergency contraception, commonly known as “the morning-after pill,” against their will.
In 2005, the pharmacists protested against being forced to fill orders for the drug. They argued that the governor’s action violated deeply held religious convictions as the drug can act as an abortion-causing agent.
The Illinois Supreme Court said the religious objections of the pro-life health professionals must be taken into consideration and concluded that the governor’s order has a real and direct impact on pro-life health care professionals.
Similarly, Advocates has been involved in a "right of conscience" case for over six years, Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Center. We are defending two Christian physicians who specialize in fertility treatment and were sued by an umarried, lesbian woman alleging they discriminated against her because of her "sexual orientation." In actuality, the physicians referred the patient to another medical clinic because they were opposed to artificially inseminating any unmarried woman because of their religious beliefs. America's First Amendment grants all individuals a constitutional right to exercise their faith in the workplace and elsewhere.
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.
Friday, December 19, 2008
A federal judge in Columbia, South Carolina, has temporarily stopped the state from making and issuing license plates featuring a stained glass emblem with a cross on it and the words “I Believe.”
Granting a request from a group that had argued the plates showed an unconstitutional preference toward Christianity, U.S. District Judge Currie ordered the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to stop taking any more orders for the plates until the court reaches a final decision. Although over 400 plates are in production, none have been shipped.
In April, 2008, the bill establishing the license plate was overwhelmingly passed by the South Carolina Legislature. Even the Lt. Governor displays the “I Believe” tag on his official website stating that the tags reflect South Carolina’s values.
In June, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Washington, D.C.) filed a lawsuit stating the plates send a message that South Carolina is endorsing religion, and therefore, the plates violate the separation of church and state.
State Attorney General Henry McMaster stated, “I am extremely disappointed in the court’s ruling, and feel the ‘I Believe’ license tag is completely constitutional. I will strongly urge and recommend that the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Corrections immediately appeal this decision to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.”
This effort to halt production of the “I Believe” license plates is yet another attempt to strip religion from the public and silence those who wish to share their faith. Advocates for Faith and Freedom is committed to fighting this type of incorrect interpretation of the First Amendment and ensure the right to religious freedom for all Americans under the 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.
Friday, December 12, 2008
eHarmony, an online dating service that conducts extensive personality profiling before introducing men and women with matching values and interests, has reached a settlement with the New Jersey Attorney General requiring the privately owned online matchmaker to cater to homosexuals.
The settlement stemmed from a discrimination lawsuit filed by a homosexual man, Eric McKinley, against eHarmony in 2005. Under the terms of the settlement, eHarmony is required to pay $50,000 to the state for administrative costs and $5,000 to Mr. McKinley. In addition, eHarmony must create a new web site – Compatible Partners – exclusively for homosexuals by March 31, 2009.
eHarmony legal counsel, Theodore Olson, stated, “Even though we believed the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the Attorney General since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.”
It is clear that there is currently a greater threat to religious liberty as the homosexual agenda is forced on private businesses across the nation that hold religious values and principles. Advocates for Faith and Freedom is dedicated to promoting traditional values and advocating for religious liberty rights in the courts.
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.
