On Tuesday, November 29, 2011, the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) will again erect a natNativity Scene depicting the birth of Jesus Christ. For the third year in a row, the crèche will stand in the State Capitol Rotunda Building in Springfield, Illinois.

In 2008, the SNSC made history when the Secretary of State’s office granted a permit to the group, allowing the Nativity Scene to go on display. The crèche stood in the State Capitol Building, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution which provides for such religious expression in the public square as long as such displays are privately-funded.

The SNSC’s primary goal is to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. A secondary mission of the group is to inform the public regarding the constitutionality of such expressions of faith in the public square.

Most Rev. Thomas Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield’s Roman Catholic Diocese, will address those gathered in the Rotunda to celebrate and bear renewed witness to the birth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Tom Brejcha, Esq., president and chief counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, a member of the SNSC and its legal counsel, will briefly explain the constitutional rights of private citizens to erect Nativity Scene as a form of free speech and free exercise of religion in America’s “public square”. Other SNSC members scheduled to speak include Beth Rogers of Springfield, pro-family activist; Dave Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute; and Arlene Sawicki, a pro-family activist from South Barrington.

The ceremony will begin at 11:30 A.M. and run through 1 P.M.

Three of Illinois’ Catholic dioceses have decided to drop their lawsuits against the State of Illinois regarding the termination of foster care and adoption services contracts with their Catholic Charities affiliates.

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services announced that it was revoking its contracts with the Catholic agencies because they refused to place children with same-sex and cohabiting “couples.”  The state action followed passage by the Illinois Legislature of a new law legalizing same-sex “civil unions.”

The bishops of the Springfield, Joliet, and Belleville dioceses announced they were abandoning their legal action against the state because of the financial toll involved.

“The decision not to pursue further appeals was reached with great reluctance, but was necessitated by the fact that the State of Illinois has made it financially impossible for our agencies to continue to provide these services,” says Belleville Bishop Edward Braxton.  “Since we now need to close offices and lay off employees, further appeals would be moot.”

Catholic officials estimate that the state’s decision will affect approximately 1500 foster children.  “While the State has forced the Catholic Church out of state-supported foster care and adoption services, the losers will be the children, foster care families, and adoptive parents who will no longer have the option of Catholic, faith-based services,” the bishops said in a joint statement.

However, the bishops also noted:  “The silver lining of this decision is that our Catholic Charities agencies going forward will be able to focus on being more Catholic and more charitable, while less dependent on government funding and intrusive state policies.”

The public has likely heard that the ironically — or deceptively — named “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act” has resulted in the state of Illinois engaging in religious discrimination by refusing to renew its contract with Catholic Charities adoption agencies. The reason for this travesty is that Catholic Charities refuses to capitulate to homosexual tyrants who seek to compel them to contravene their religious beliefs by placing children in the homes of men and women who affirm homosexual “identities.”

What many do not yet know but should have expected is that the state is discriminating against another religious foster care agency, refusing to renew its contract with the Evangelical Child and Family Agency (ECFA), which has done commendable work for children since 1950, for the same reason.

Homosexuals and their ideological allies are feebly trying to assert that the central problem is that these agencies receive state funds. Somehow that wasn’t a problem in 1965 when the state first asked ECFA to partner with the Department of Children and Family Services to help place needy children in good homes.

Nor was it a problem every year thereafter — at least not until the civil union law was passed. This is the law that during the floor debate in Springfield, State Senator David Koehler (D-Peoria), the bill’s sponsor, stated would not affect child welfare agencies. Homosexual activists have made a liar out of him.

Like Catholic Charities, ECFA is steadfastly adhering to its religious commitments. Unlike Catholic Charities, however, ECFA has chosen not to oppose the outrageous DCFS decision, thus allowing the state to abrogate religious freedom.

ECFA’s decision not to oppose this assault on religious freedom may reflect their troublingly evasive approach to the entire imbroglio. During sixty minutes of discussion over the course of a two-day interview with ECFA director Ken Withrow, he carefully parsed his words in response to all direct questions regarding ECFA’s obvious position that they will not place children in the homes of homosexuals because ECFA believes homosexuality is sinful.

When asked if he thought the civil union law is connected to DCFS’s decision to sever relations with ECFS, he paused and then said “yes.” When asked specifically how it was connected, he said “DCFS needed to look at policies and practices to make sure all organizations that they partner with are in compliance.”

When asked, “In what specific way does ECFA fail to be in compliance with DCFS practices and policies?” Withrow said “ECFA’s policy is to recruit, license, and place with Evangelical families, and DCFS wants anyone who fulfills DCFS requirements to be considered.”

Multiple times in multiple ways I attempted to engage Withrow directly on the salient issue of homosexuality, but he studiously evaded any discussions of the rainbow-colored elephant in the room. In fact, it was clear that he became annoyed with the questions. When asked directly about placing children in the homes of homosexuals, Withrow responded repeatedly with the well-rehearsed talking point: “We recruit, license and place only with evangelical families.”

And this folks is one of the reasons we are in the cultural mess we’re in today. When leaders in distinctly Christian organizations and churches steadfastly refuse to courageously, unambiguously, and publicly affirm truth on the issue of homosexuality, they become part of the problem.

Withrow explained that ECFA offered to refer people in whose care ECFA would not place children (e.g. homosexuals) to other adoption agencies. But is this something that any Christian organization should do? If a group of polyamorists were to seek to adopt, would it be morally permissible for any Christian to direct them to an agency that would place children in such a household?

Or imagine a Christian crisis pregnancy center telling a woman who seeks an abortion, “We don’t perform abortions because they offend God, but we can tell you where you can get one.”

We either believe homosexuality is a grave moral offense against a righteous, holy God — or we don’t. And if it is, we have no business facilitating it in any way.

When I asked Mr. Withrow why ECFA is not fighting DCFS’s decision, he stated that “DCFS has the right to determine the practices and policies of the agencies with which they contract.” But, I asked, “Should the state be permitted to engage in religious discrimination?”

In a recent CNN debate among candidates running in the Republican primary, Princeton law professor, Robert George asked the following important and illuminating question and in so doing, told Illinois Congressmen and women what they should do:

In Illinois, after passing a civil union bill, the state government decided to exclude certain religiously affiliated foster care and adoption agencies, including Catholic and Protestant agencies, because the agencies, in line with the teachings of their faith, cannot in conscience place children with same-sex partners.

Now, at least half of Illinois’ foster and adoption funds come from the federal government. Should the federal government be subsidizing states that discriminate against Catholic and other religious adoption agencies? If a state legislature refuses to make funding available on equal terms to those providers who as a matter of conscience will not place children in same-sex homes, should federal legislation come in to protect the freedom of conscience of those religious providers?

Now, that didn’t seem so hard to say. Quite publicly and with apparent ease, Professor George managed to say exactly what Mr. Withrow refused to say: ECFA lost their contract with the state because they will not place children with homosexual couples.

IFI’s hope is that some courageous Illinois Congressman or Congresswoman will propose such federal legislation. Such legislation may help stop federal legislation proposed by far left U.S. Congressman, Pete Stark (D-CA) that calls for prohibiting “discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent.” Stark’s bill, the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act,” would prohibit federal funds from going to any states that allow adoption/foster care agencies — including religious agencies — to refuse to place children in the homes of homosexuals or cross-dressers.

It’s remarkable that homosexuals who constitute less than 3 percent of the population are capturing virtually all of our cultural institutions. They couldn’t do it without the complicity of conservatives who only rarely, awkwardly, and self-consciously defend their beliefs in the public square. If we would proclaim our beliefs with the conviction, boldness, and tenacity that homosexuals proclaim theirs, we could protect our religious liberty and help create a better culture for the next generation.

TAKE ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative and ask him/her to sponsor legislation to prohibit federal funding to state agencies that engage in religious discrimination, like Illinois’ DCFS. Tell him/her that state sponsored discrimination against people of faith, or faith-based organizations should not be subsidized by federal tax dollars.

By Bob Kellogg

The Thomas More Society is appealing a decision that allows Illinois to discontinue its contract with Catholic Charities’ foster and adoption care services.

Tom Ciesielka, spokesman for the legal society, says action in this appeal is urgently needed. “Basically, Catholic Charities wants to put a hold on any possible transition of moving the children out of Catholic Charities into other foster-care providers,” he explains.

At issue is the new Illinois law that recognizes same-sex civil unions. Since Catholic Charities does not license same-sex or unmarried couples for adoption or foster care, referring them instead to other agencies, Circuit Judge John Schmidt ruled on August 18 that the state could stop working with the organization.

“People who may not agree with the moral issues for or against same-sex ‘marriage’ will see that the core of this is doing what’s right for the children, and that’s what Catholic Charities and Thomas More Society is focusing on,” Ciesielka assures.

So the Thomas More Society is asking Judge Schmidt to reconsider, rehear, and vacate his order.

Help expand our reach
by forwarding this email to like-minded family and friends.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

This week, the Thomas More Society filed a “friend of the court” brief available here in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of more than 60 members of the Indiana General Assembly, in opposition to Planned Parenthood’s assertion that defunding abortion providers imposes an “unconstitutional condition” on physicians’ alleged right to perform abortions.

The brief states that “abortion providers have no constitutionally recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to perform abortions” and that funding restrictions would not “interfere with the ability of pregnant women to obtain abortions. Accordingly, because the constitutional rights of women seeking abortions have not been violated, neither has the asserted right of their providers.”

In the trial court, the Thomas More Society scored a partial victory when U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied Planned Parenthood’s request to block a provision of an Indiana law that requires doctors to tell women who are seeking abortions that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm” (previous media release here).

Society attorneys had also filed a “friend of the court” brief available here in the trial court on behalf of the Indiana legislators, defending both this provision and the provision of the law defunding Planned Parenthood.

“We’re proud to represent the members of the Indiana General Assembly in doing the will of the people, both in preventing tax dollars from being used to support abortion providers and in ensuring that women considering abortion are fully informed about the nature of the procedure,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of Chicago’s Thomas More Society.

For more information or comments, please contact Tom Ciesielka at 312-422-1333 or tc@tcpr.net.

About the Thomas More Society
Founded in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm that exists to restore respect for life in law. Based in Chicago, the Thomas More Society defends the sanctity of human life, traditional family values and religious liberty in courtrooms across the country. The Society is a nonprofit organization wholly supported by private donations. For more information or to support the work of Thomas More Society, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.com.

via Christian Newswire

Yesterday, IFI wrote about the decision by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to terminate all contracts with Catholic Charities in four Illinois dioceses. There is some good news to report: Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt has issued a preliminary injunction that will temporarily permit Catholic Charities to continue to serve children and families as per existing contracts. DCFS will not be permitted to terminate contracts between Catholic Charities in these four Illinois dioceses as it sought to do last Friday.

Also yesterday, IFI learned that State Senator David Koehler’s office sent out the following email in response to our article:

Sen. Koehler did not intend to force religious organizations to compromise their own beliefs. He introduced an amendment in the Senate that exempted faith based organizations such as Catholic Charities from the civil union law. The amendment did not receive enough votes to pass committee.

Kyle Dooley
Office of Senator David Koehler

Kyle Dooley’s response is somewhat misleading, whether intentionally so or not. It seems to suggest that without the religious exemption amendment passing, religious organizations are not protected.

The civil union law is actually titled the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Senator Koehler’s legislative intent clarification (the dialogue between State Senator Bill Haine and Senator Koehler) that was included in yesterday’s article took place during the debate about this very bill. The clarification of legislative intent that Koehler read was not exclusive or original to discussions of the religious exemption amendment that didn’t pass.

At the hearing to discuss the subsequent proposed religious exemption amendment, Koehler read aloud from the transcript of the original floor debate on the civil union bill. The religious exemption amendment should be unnecessary because the sponsor of the civil union law, David Koehler, made it perfectly clear during the original debate that the Religious Freedom Protection part of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union bill was intended to protect religious child welfare agencies.

This adoption/foster care debacle points to the fact that religious protections will never suffice to protect religious liberty in the face of homosexuality-affirming activists who will use any means available — including even deceit — to achieve their pernicious ends. Here is what the homosexual activist organization Equality Illinois has posted on its website regarding the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act:

How would the Act affect religious affiliated adoption agencies?

Answer: The Act would not impact faith-based adoption agencies or adoption procedures. The Act does not amend the Adoption Act, which governs both public and private adoption agencies.

This adoption/foster care mess also exposes the disastrous consequences of allowing the contrived euphemism “sexual orientation” to be allowed into laws and public policies. The use of the term “sexual orientation” is a deceitful rhetorical machination that falsely equates heterosexuality with homosexuality, suggesting both ontological and moral equivalency. The fanciful notions that homosexuality and heterosexuality are ontologically and morally equivalent are radical, unproven, subjective beliefs that have no place in law or public policy. And the term “sexual orientation” ignores the objective biological realities that inhere heterosexuality and render it utterly distinct from homosexuality.

Whenever homosexual activists and their ideological accomplices insert the term “sexual orientation,” into public policies or laws, they’re really referring only to homosexuality — not heterosexuality. To see the truth of that, replace “sexual orientation” with “heterosexuality,” which homosexual activists claim “sexual orientation” includes, in any anti-bullying policy or anti-discrimination law and see if it makes sense.

Removing the term “sexual orientation” from public policies and laws does not mean it’s open season to mistreat those who make their sexual desires central to their identity. Similarly, the absence of the term “polyamory,” another condition constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual conduct, from anti-bullying policies does not mean it’s open season to mistreat polyamorists.

So, conservative friends, strike the term “sexual orientation” (along with the terms “gay,” “transgendered,” “gender nonconforming,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression”) from your vocabulary. Then work to strike all of them from public policies and laws. Everyone has the right to discriminate, that is, to make distinctions between and judgments about homosexuality (and cross-dressing). It is that act of making moral distinctions about volitional conduct that the sexual anarchists among us seek to eradicate.

Take ACTION: Contact Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn and DCFS Director Erwin McEwen asking them to cease their attacks on religiously based foster care agencies. Politely point out that Catholic Charities are within their First Amendment rights to disqualify those applicants who self-identify as homosexual.

Help expand our reach
by forwarding this email to like-minded family and friends.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

On July 8, 2011, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) director, Erwin McEwen, sent a letter to a Catholic Charities director in which he said that DCFS is denying Catholic Charities foster care and adoption contracts because Catholic Charities “does not intend to comply with the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection Act and Civil Union law” which McEwen asserts “applies to foster care and adoption services.”

That seems a peculiar statement in light of the exchange below between State Senator William Haine (D-Alton) and the bill’s sponsor, State Senator David Koehler(D-Peoria), during a floor debate on this bill. Senator Koehler reads Senator Haine’s question from the hearing transcript, which begins with Haine quoting the civil union law:

Haine: “‘Nothing in this Act shall interfere or regulate with (sic) the religious practice of any religious body.’ Any religious body is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate civil unions. Now, I take it from your comments that the intent of this bill is not to make that one item but two separate intents: the solemnization of civil unions is one sphere; the second sphere is religious practice, which includes a wide variety of things. Is that correct?”

Koehler: “Yes, that is correct.”

Haine: “So, we should not read them together as just referring to the act of solemnization of a civil union, right?”

Koehler: “If I understand your question correctly, yes.”

Haine: “Therefore, and this is part of the intent, this has been the worry of these institutions of faith of all denominations, Christian and Jewish. Go to their various agencies providing social services…adoption agencies, a wide gamut of things–so that’s covered under the first sentence (of the civil union act)?”

Koehler: “Yes. The intent is not to at all impede the rights religious organizations have to carry out their duties and religious activities.”

DCFS’ unethical decision will affect more than 2,500 children.

McEwen also said “There is no meeting of the minds” regarding the foster care and adoption contracts. McEwen is right: There can be no meeting of the minds between Catholic Charities, whose leaders think rationally and morally, and those at DCFS who evidently do neither. No child welfare agency–religious or secular–should place children in homes in which the caregivers embrace and affirm sexual immorality.

McEwen’s fatuous and absurd claim is that since Catholic Charities will not agree to violate their religious convictions by placing children in the homes of self-identified homosexuals, they are in violation of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Seriously?

The law is called The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Did McEwen not notice that the protection of “religious freedom” occupies the primary position in the law’s title?

Homosexuals, their ideological allies, (and the cowards who refuse to oppose them) exploit children yet again in the service of advancing their selfish goals. They make the patently deceitful claim that they’re centrally concerned with the welfare of children in desperate need of homes — all the while displacing 2,500 children.

As I wrote earlier, Benjamin Wolf of the ACLU argues that “limiting the pool of prospective foster care parents because certain religious traditions believe same-sex relationships are sinful is irresponsible when children are in need.”

What Wolf conveniently omits is the fact that homosexuals constitute between 2-3 percent of the population; the number of those who are in stable relationships is smaller; and the number of homosexuals in stable relationships who want to foster or adopt is smaller still. By allowing a few Christian agencies to prohibit homosexuals from fostering — homosexuals who may foster through other agencies — will result in a negligible impact on the pool of foster care parents.

What does DCFS’ decision mean for Illinois? It means religious liberty loses; children lose; and the integrity of Illinois lawmaking (if that’s not oxymoronic) loses.

So, who wins? Homosexuals win. Homosexuals’ narcissistic desires take precedence over religious liberty, children, and the integrity of the lawmaking process.

In a short article titled “How to Destroy a Culture in 5 Easy Steps” that appears on the First Things website, Joe Carter writes about the ways policy issues can move from politically unthinkable to radical to acceptable to sensible to popular and then finally become enshrined in policy.

This process, Carter contends, can be reversed, so that something entrenched in policy can become unthinkable. Carter warns, however, that such a reversal “requires a people who have courage and conviction and a willingness to be despised for the truth. Do current generations have such virtues? Probably not. But I’m holding out hope that our grandkids will be born that way.”

Let’s hope that we don’t have to wait that long. Let’s hope and pray that conservatives muster the willingness to be despised rather than continue seeking ways to rationalize cowardice.

Take ACTION: Send an email or a fax to Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn and DCFS Director Erwin McEwen asking them to cease their attacks on religiously based foster care agencies. Politely point out that Catholic Charities are within their First Amendment rights to disqualify those applicants who self-identify as homosexual.

Read more:

Illinois Moves to Shut Down Catholic Charities’ Foster Care and Adoption Services (Illinois Review)

Homosexual Agenda Engenders Discrimination (IFI’s Dave Smith)

Many Christians are familiar with the apologetic work of Dr. Frank Turek. Many, however, are unaware that he was recently fired by Cisco Systems because of his religious and political beliefs about homosexuality — beliefs that Dr. Turek did not bring to the workplace.

A homosexual manager of Cisco Systems discovered that Dr. Turek has written on same-sex “marriage” and reported his discovery to Cisco management, requesting that Dr. Turek be fired. Dr. Turek was summarily fired in violation of Cisco Systems own diversity policies and in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that states that “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer…to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s…religion” and further that “The term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief” (emphasis added).

No one from Human Resources investigated the situation, nor did anyone even talk to Dr. Turek. Apparently, if a homosexual dislikes the moral beliefs of a co-worker that in no way affect job performance and tells human resources to jump, they say “How high?” Fairness, integrity, equality, tolerance, and diversity be damned.

Conservatives need to speak publicly about homosexuality to neighbors, friends, co-workers, public school teachers and administrators, and their local press, even if such speech results in intolerance and scorn. When the topic arises, we must stop retreating from it because it’s uncomfortable. Homosexuality — which the liberal organization SIECUS defines as attraction, fantasies, and sexual behavior — is not analogous to race, and opposing its normalization is not hateful. The fact that some believe otherwise is no justification for allowing liberty and truth to be erased from the public square.

And all Christians who value religious liberty and real diversity should not only oppose this outrage with vigor, tenacity, and courage, but also ask their church leaders to provide teaching on the topic. Christians need to understand the specious secular arguments that are used to legitimize homosexuality in order to participate effectively in the cultural debate and so that they are not deceived.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a fax or an email message to Mr. John Chambers, Cisco CEO to politely express your concerns about the intolerant way in which they treated Dr. Frank Turek for exercising his religious freedoms.

Please read Mike Adams’ compelling story of the firing of Frank Turek below:

Part 1 — The Cisco Delusion of Diversity
by Mike Adams, Townhall.com

Mr. John Chambers
Office of the President
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mail Stop SJC10/5/4
300 East Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134

Dear Mr. Chambers:

I am deeply disappointed that I have not yet heard back from you in reference to your company’s firing of Dr. Frank Turek. I know that many of my readers are interested in hearing a direct response from you. I also regret that I must write to you with additional concerns about possible systematic religious and political discrimination at Cisco.

Those additional concerns stem from statements made by Ms. Marilyn Nagel, your Senior Director of Inclusion and Diversity. Dr. Turek spoke with her recently by phone regarding his firing — a firing that was not based on his work but on his religious and political beliefs.

To her credit, Ms. Nagel apologized for the firing of Dr. Turek. Dr. Turek was told that he could apply for another job with Cisco, but that there are “no guarantees.” (Translation: he can always buy a lottery ticket). Of course, there are no guarantees winning the lottery. And I think Frank’s chances of winning the lottery are better than getting hired back by a company that is trying to cover its backside while appeasing the Gaystapo.

But to her greater discredit, Ms. Nagel not only refused to do anything to address the cultural factors that contributed to the firing, she refused to even consider the possibility that the Cisco culture was decidedly tilted toward intolerant political correctness — the soil from which the firing sprouted.

Ms. Nagel was made aware of the fact that I was present on that call to make a record of what I heard over the speakerphone. Below I have reprinted portions of that conversation. The portions in italics are the unaltered words of Ms. Nagel. My un-italicized comments are interspersed between hers.

Our culture is very welcoming of all points of view. We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.

I was encouraged to hear this from Ms. Nagel. But if that’s true, as Dr. Turek asked, “How could a Cisco leader and a seasoned HR professional possibly think its right to fire someone for his conservative political or religious beliefs on same sex marriage unless the Cisco culture has become drastically tilted toward political correctness?”

Ms. Nagel refused to answer the question directly and denied the culture was tilted. Instead, she offered an endless stream of platitudes about how inclusive and diverse the Cisco culture is.

Because we believe that it has to be an employee environment where everyone is welcome, we do discourage discussions around strongly held political beliefs or religious beliefs in group settings within Cisco other than certain forums, and so we’re very sensitive about protecting our culture of acceptance of everyone, we don’t want anyone to ever feel excluded and that means all opinions, and I really believe that’s what inclusion is all about.

She also said:

There is a reason that we don’t have political discussions on our campus, and that is because we find that they can be divisive and so we choose to allow people to have those conversations informally or off campus.

So, according to Ms. Nagel, discussions of important political or religious beliefs are so divisive that they must be confined to certain forums at Cisco. I am sure that you would agree that the word “forum” suggests equal representation of different perspectives, especially since Ms. Nagel asserts that “all opinions” are welcome and that “We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.”

Then how does Ms. Nagel explain this one-sided Cisco-sponsored “forum” in favor of same-sex marriage, led by a Cisco Vice President just last week on the Cisco campus?

This forum raises the question of how you can “make progress on issues that are divisive and controversial.” What does Cisco mean by “progress?” Does it mean firing people like Dr. Turek in order to advance the cause of same sex-marriage? Is the firing of those opposed to same-sex marriage deemed an acceptable way to reduce divisiveness within Cisco? I’m not trying to be divisive. I’m just asking.

Forgive me for raising another potentially divisive issue, but I could not help but notice that the Honorable Boris Dittrich was one the panelists at this one-sided “forum.” He helped lead the Netherlands to be the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage. He did this as a Member of Parliament. In other words, he is a gay activist and politician.

I’ll let this sink in before I write back to discuss Cisco’s further commitment to advancing the cause of same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, the evidence included in my next letter will also show Cisco’s lack of commitment to the cause of religious and political diversity.

…To be continued.

Part 2 — Cisco Sinks to Dishonorable Low
by Mike Adams, Townhall.com

Mr. John Chambers
Office of the President
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mail Stop SJC10/5/4
300 East Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134

Dear Mr. Chambers:

In my last letter to you, I pointed out the one-sided nature of a same-sex marriage forum led just last week by a Cisco Vice President on the campus of Cisco Systems. This despite the fact that your “Inclusion and diversity” officer, Ms. Marilyn Nagel, assured us that:

Our culture is very welcoming of all points of view. We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.

I noted that one of the speakers at your one-sided “forum” was a gay activist who helped Holland become the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage. In my research, I also noticed that the Honorable Evan Low was a panelist on that one-sided “forum.”

At age 26, Mr. Low was among the youngest Mayors in the United States. As a gay man (your own website says) “he brought unique perspectives to the office” of mayor. He certainly brought a pro-same-sex marriage perspective. This link (now disabled) from the Cisco website shows more on his political crusade in favor of same-sex marriage. Pay special attention to the “Vote NO on Proposition Eight” picture at the bottom left of your screen. Would you consider that “divisive,” Mr. Chambers? Or does it simply depend on your perspective?

By now Cisco must certainly be prepared to admit that there was no one on the forum representing the other side of the issue. Don’t you think it’s odd that a forum ostensibly talking about “collaboration” on “conflicting points of view” would not collaborate but only offer one particular point of view?

So Cisco, which claims to take no position on same-sex marriage, invites in and pays gay politicians and gay activists to speak in favor of same-sex marriage. You do this in a “forum” held on the Cisco campus and led by a Cisco Vice President — a “collaboration forum”, which does not collaborate with a speaker from the other side of a politically divisive issue. And yet those who have spoken against same-sex marriage, off campus and not in any way representing Cisco, are fired.

Of course, I am talking about Dr. Frank Turek. And I am specifically calling you out on your company’s boastful assertions that Cisco is inclusive and diverse and doesn’t take sides on divisive political issues. And I am beginning to believe that I am talking to someone who has no interest in responding to reasonable inquires about matters of fundamental fairness.

Cisco’s real position is contradictory: We don’t sponsor a particular political perspective or even permit discussion of a divisive political topic such as same-sex marriage unless we choose to sponsor a forum that presents only one particular political perspective on a divisive political topic such as same same-sex marriage. So you’re not sponsoring it but you really are. Now, let us return to our conversation with your “inclusion” expert Marilyn Nagel.

I don’t think your position is in any way reflective of a position that’s not included in our dialogue. We have leaders who have every type of belief and we encourage that kind of diversity at Cisco.

That’s great to hear from Ms. Nagel. Now, please send me the link to any Cisco-sponsored “forum,” led by any Cisco Vice President, with the link to your website displaying “Vote YES on Proposition Eight!” pictures. After thoroughly searching I have yet to see such a thing on your website. I suppose it is possible that have you have already fired all the people who supported Proposition Eight. But I think it is more likely that your “inclusive and diverse” culture has intimidated them into remaining silent. Ms. Nagel also said:

We appreciate that people bring differences as long as they don’t make others feel unwelcome or act in a manner that’s disrespectful toward others, so I appreciate your feeling about this and your concern and I can only suggest that you take a look at some of the stuff that we put on our website.

Mr. Chambers, we’ve taken a look at your website. But we’re still looking for a little inclusion and we’re still craving a little diversity. Dr. Turek’s firing certainly did not sprout from the soil of true inclusion and diversity. Your shareholders and fair-minded Americans await your response:

adams_mike@hotmail.com. We are simply tired of being excluded from the dialogue by experts waving the multi-colored banner of inclusion and diversity. In the meantime, my readers may choose to contact you HERE.

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts “Womyn” On Campus.

Help expand our reach
by forwarding this email to like-minded family and friends.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

A group of religious denominations that provide chaplains to the U.S. military are calling for the establishment of new conscience protections for members of the chaplain corps.

Twenty-two chaplaincy endorsers have sent a joint letter to the chief chaplains of the Army, Navy, and Air Force calling for “broad, clear, and strong protections for conscience” for chaplains who believe in traditional sexual morality.

The letter comes on the heels of the action by the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama to open the ranks of the Armed Forces to those who self-identify homosexuals. The religious groups state that this “protected status…creates an environment that is increasingly hostile to the many chaplains whose faith groups and personal consciences recognize homosexual behavior as immoral and unsafe.”

“Chaplain are instructors of conscience,” the letter states. “Chaplains have a moral responsibility to insure that when they preach, teach or counsel, they do so in accordance with their conscience and in harmony with the faith group by which they are endorsed…No American, especially those serving in the Armed Forces, should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs or be marginalized for holding to those beliefs.”

The religious denominations signing the joint letter included, among others, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Evangelical Free Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the National Association of Evangelicals.

The concern of Bible-believing chaplaincy endorsers was heightened recently when Navy officials announced that they would allow Naval facilities to be used for same-sex union ceremonies. Navy Rear Admiral Mark Tidd has temporarily suspended that new policy in the wake of Congressional outrage led by Missouri U.S. Representatives Todd Akin and Vicky Hartzler.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently made it clear what he thinks of the conscience rights of military personnel. At a recent informal session with a group of combat Marines in Afghanistan, he was asked the following question:

“Sir, we joined the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps has a set of standards and values that is better than that of the civilian sector. Now we have gone and changed those values. We have not given the Marines a chance to decide whether they wish to continue serving under that. Is there going to be an option for those Marines that no longer wish to serve due to the fact that their moral values have not changed?”

Secretary Gates had a one-word answer: No. “You’ll have to complete your enlistment just like everybody else.”

Gates’ boss, President Obama, has restated his support for the homosexual movement by declaring June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. The Federal Reserve Bank in Richmond, Virginia, has chosen to “honor” the presidential proclamation by flying the rainbow flag of the homosexual movement underneath the American flag outside its offices.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

Catholic Charities in Illinois Seek Remedy for Best Interests of Children, Families

(SPRINGFIELD, IL) Leaders of three Catholic dioceses – the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Peoria and Joliet – took legal action today as their charities fight to continue their work in serving the best interests of thousands of needy children and families throughout the state.

In March of this year, the Attorney General’s office issued a letter stating that the office “received notice that Catholic Charities … discriminates against Illinois citizens based on race, marital status and sexual orientation” in the provision of foster care and adoption services and demanded that Catholic Charities turn over a wide range of documents in response. The June 1 law authorizing civil unions in Illinois has raised further questions and criticism about Catholic Charities’ longstanding position not to place children for adoption and foster care with non-married couples who live together – regardless of sexual orientation.

This lawsuit, filed in Sangamon County Circuit Court, seeks a declaration that the charities are in full compliance with Illinois law in their current practices and an injunction against further action by Illinois government officials to the contrary. The charities argue both that the Illinois Human Rights Act exempts religious adoption agencies from the provisions relied upon by the Attorney General’s office and that the new Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act includes an express protection for the religious freedom of entities like Catholic Charities.

The charities ask the court to declare that they are legally justified to continue their current practices of working only with married couples and single, non-cohabiting individuals. Civil union couples are free to choose among dozens of other organizations for these services.

“Child welfare advocates know it is in the best interest of Illinois children for Catholic Charities to stay in this business,” said Steven Roach, Executive Director for Catholic Charities in the Springfield Diocese. “It’s tragic that there are people who believe unnecessarily disrupting the lives of thousands of vulnerable children is an acceptable outcome in this situation.”

Catholic Charities have served thousands of children and families with top-quality, nurturing care since 1921 and handle about 20 percent of the cases in Illinois. Charities’ leaders are extremely concerned what will happen with those children and families if they are forced out of this work.

“Religious and faith-based entities need not check their beliefs at the door when providing vital social services for the benefit of needy and vulnerable children and families in Illinois. Catholic Charities has a clear right under Illinois law to pursue its charitable good works in the true spirit of the Gospels and the Sermon on the Mount, faithful to the essential tenets of its Catholic faith. We will advocate strongly to protect Catholic Charities’ continuing its mission of social service,” said Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society, which is representing the charities in the lawsuit.

To read the demand letter from the Attorney General’s office and the complaint in the lawsuit, go to www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Pro-life Victory in Greenland, New Hampshire-Thomas More Society Secures First Amendment Rights of Local Activists

June 6, 2011 (New Hampshire)-After nearly twenty-three years of laboring under the threat of arrest whenever pro-life advocates protested the abortion clinic in the town of Greenland, New Hampshire, the Thomas More Society successfully lifted the injunction that threatened pro-lifers for so long.

Local coordinators of the 40 Days for Life Campaign came to the Thomas More Society for help in their efforts to hold 24-hour peaceful and prayerful vigils in their forty-days for life campaign. Vigil leaders knew they would run afoul of the prohibitions in the injunction that restricted the time of day, days of the week, locations, and manner in which pro-lifers could picket the clinic and seek to help women who enter and leave its doors.

In a forceful letter to the town administrator, town selectmen, and police department of Greenland, the Thomas More Society asserted that any application of the stale injunction on 40 Days for Life and affiliated activists would be unlawful, and the very possibility that the town might arrest them or subject them to contempt proceedings placed an unconstitutional chill on free speech. Within days of receiving the letter, Greenland officials conceded that they agreed with the Society’s position and would no longer enforce the injunction against law-abiding, peaceful demonstrators outside the clinic.

Read the entire story HERE.

Founded in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm that exists to restore respect for life in law. Based in Chicago, the Thomas More Society defends the sanctity of human life, the family and religious liberty in courtrooms across the country.

Because of the Illinois legislature’s failure to enact an explicit amendment to the new Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act, Catholic Citizens of Illinois commends the action taken by the Diocese of Rockford to discontinue offering state-funded adoption and foster care services. See:http://www.rockforddiocese.org/

Frank Vonch, director of the Rockford Catholic Charities stated, “The agency is being forced to opt out of contracting with the State of Illinois for these services because of the Illinois legislature’s failure to enact an explicit amendment to the new Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act. The failed Amendment would have allowed Catholic Charities to refer unmarried, cohabitating couples, whether same-sex or opposite sex, to other agencies so as to not violate the teachings of the Catholic faith when the Civil Unions law goes into effect on June 1.”

The Rockford Agency handles approximately 350 foster family and adoption cases in 11 counties in northern Illinois with a state budget of $7.5 million. 58 caseworkers will be terminated due to this decision. The agency is determined to do everything possible to help them find employment.

“Legally, albeit emotionally painful, we determined this was the right decision to make for the moral and financial future of the Diocese of Rockford,” said diocesan general counsel Ellen Lynch.

“The law of our land has always guaranteed its people freedom of religion. Denying this exemption to faith-based agencies leads one to believe that our lawmakers prefer laws that guarantee freedom FROM religion. We simply cannot compromise the spirit that motivates us to deliver quality, professional services to families by letting our state define our religious teachings,” said Penny Wiegert, diocesan director of communications.”

In the encyclical by Pope John Paul II (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons), he stated: “As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.”

A spokesperson for Chicago Catholic Charities stated that their agency will continue to work with “married” couples seeking adoption and will continue their policy of referrals to other agencies for those not “married.”

“All faith-based agencies that offer adoption and foster care services will be called upon to make these difficult decisions in keeping with the teachings of their church”, said Mary Anne Hackett, President to Catholic Citizens of Illinois. In the long run, it is the children in need of loving homes that will suffer.”

A Statement on The Catholic Conference of Illinois web site: “Unless more explicit language reflecting the legislative intent of the Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act is enacted, faith-based agencies, including Catholic Charities, will be at risk of impending legal action that aims to close their doors. This will lead to an unnecessary disruption in the lives of thousands of children in Illinois foster care.” http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/newsandlegislativeupdates

A call to repeal the Civil Unions Act has been taken up by the Illinois Family Institute. They offer a free TAKE ACTION fax or e-mail to Governor Quinn and our State Legislators.

Americans for Life and Americans For Truth About Homosexuality have launched the Illinois Defense of Marriage Initiative www.DefendMarriageIl.org and urges all concerned Illinois residents to join their “Citizens’ Petition to Defend Marriage.”

On February 4, 2009 openly gay State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) introduced a bill to legalize same-sex “marriage” in Illinois. On February 18, 2009 — recognizing that homosexual “marriage” has very little support in the Illinois General Assembly, Rep. Harris introduced a compromise — homosexual “civil unions” bill. This bill was rammed through the General Assembly by razor-thin majorities during the last two days of the 2010 Veto Session (Nov. 30th in the House and Dec. 1st in the Senate). Fourteen of the seventeen lame duck lawmakers in the Illinois House voted in favor of this bill.

Pro-homosexual activists would have you believe that passage of same-sex “marriage” legislation here in Illinois would not affect you or your marriage. But the truth is that homosexual “marriage,” “civil unions,” and other special “gay” rights legislation are systematically eroding our First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and conscience.

We need to understand what is happening across our country:

• Weeks after IL Governor Patrick Quinn signed the “civil union” bill into law, a homosexual couple sued the owners of two different privately-owned bed & breakfasts for refusing to rent out their facilities to hold a “civil union” ceremony and reception. The homosexuals also filed complaints with the IL Attorney General’s office and the IL Department of Human Rights, claiming the owners violated the Human Rights Act. Since January 1, 2006, under the Human Rights Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against any individual based on “sexual orientation”, “gender identity”, age, race, religion, or gender. (Read more HERE.)
• Shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Court mandated homosexual “marriage,” the state’s largest adoption provider, Catholic Charities of Boston, decided to close down its adoption operations rather than be forced to put children in homosexual households, which would violate Catholic teachings.
• Also in Massachusetts, a parent of a 1st grade student, David Parker, was arrested and charged with “trespassing” at his son’s elementary school during a scheduled meeting with the principal and the town’s Director of Education over his objections to pro-homosexual materials. Parker asked to be notified prior to any presentations of homosexual-affirming resources and prior to any classroom discussions about homosexuality so that he could opt his child out of class during those events. After several months of communication, he was repeatedly told that his requests were “not possible.”
• In New Jersey, shortly after the State Supreme Court mandated “civil unions,” a Methodist church was stripped of its tax-exempt status because it wouldn’t rent facilities for lesbian civil union ceremonies. They are now being sued for discrimination. (Bernstein v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association)
• In New Mexico, Christian photographers were fined $6,000+ for discrimination because they wouldn’t photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. (Willock v. Elaine Photography)
• In California, the state’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled against two physicians who declined to perform in-vitro fertilization for lesbian partners, even though the doctors were willing to provide referrals to other facilities. (Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Center)
• Marcia Walden (a licensed counselor) was asked to counsel a woman in order to help “repair” her homosexual relationship. Because of her Christian faith, Ms. Walden had a “values conflict” and referred the woman to another professional, in accordance with the conduct rules of her profession. The new counselor commended Walden on her recognition of the conflict and her professionalism in making the referral, and called the counseling she received “exemplary.” Later that same day, this woman complained to Walden’s supervisor, calling her “homophobic,” leading to Walden’s discharge. (Walden v. Ctr. for Disease Control and Prevention)
• In 2009, Eastern Michigan University school officials dismissed a student from the school’s counseling program for not affirming homosexual behavior as morally acceptable. The school dismissed Julea Ward, a woman of strong Christian faith, from the program because she would not agree, prior to a counseling session, to affirm a client’s homosexual behavior and would not retract her stance in subsequent disciplinary proceedings. (Ward v. Eastern Michigan University)

Despite the fact that Illinois’ same-sex marriage bill is titled the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act,” and the civil unions bill is titled the “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act,” they will negatively affect religious liberties and freedom of conscience. These bills will not protect our individual religious freedoms to object to homosexuality as public policy. In fact, Georgetown University lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum has stated publicly that when same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights.

By yielding to the homosexual lobby and enacting counterfeit marriage bills and other special “gay” rights legislation, Springfield lawmakers have created official government policies that are negatively affecting our fundamental rights of religious freedom, speech and parental rights.

Count it a blessing if you don’t yet feel the effects of the gay agenda, but don’t allow that blessing to lull you into inaction. We must vigorously and courageously oppose every attempt to redefine marriage and the natural family. The essential task of protecting marriage, family and religious freedom is being made incalculably more difficult as the radical homosexual political agenda advances here in Illinois.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month

Mauck & Baker attorneys obtain summary judgment on the unconstitutionality of the City of Chicago’s policy.

CHICAGO – On May 31, 2011, Pastor Frank Teesdale and his attorneys at Mauck & Baker, LLC, received the good news from the United States District Court that Federal Judge William T. Hart had found the City of Chicago’s policy on religious leafleting and street evangelism at a Chicago street festival to be unconstitutional. Pastor Teesdale and nine other members of Garfield Ridge Baptist Church can now freely move about the public streets and share their faith in Jesus with others at the festivals without fear of arrest.

“Pastor Teesdale and his congregation realized that if we do not use and defend our rights, we will lose them.” said Noel Sterett, an attorney with Mauck & Baker. “I applaud the courage and perseverance that it took for them to go toe-to-toe with the City for these last three years.”

On July 12, 2008, Pastor Teesdale along with a group from his church entered the public streets during the St. Symphorosa Family Fest which was open to the public without charge and on permit from the City. Not long after Pastor Teesdale had begun handing out gospel tracts, an armed police officer working security told Teesdale and his group to that they had to leave. Knowing his rights to speak on the public streets, Pastor Teesdale stood his ground and was arrested and charged with “criminal trespass to property,” a charge the officer later admitted was improper.

The criminal case against Pastor Teesdale was dismissed in May 2009 when the City of Chicago failed to prosecute and a civil suit against the City and arresting officers was filed in July 2009. In opposition to the Teesdale’s suit, the City maintained its position that it could enforce its permit scheme to exclude people “who wished to convey a message antithetical to St. Symphorosa or the Catholic Church.” Even after Judge Hart rejected the City’s position in 2010 in an order denying the City’s motion to dismiss, the City refused to withdraw its position or promise to not interfere with further attempts by the plaintiffs to speak at the Fest. Consequently, Judge Hart issued this most recent order citing his former holding that “the City cannot constitutionally prevent plaintiffs from engaging in such speech.”

“We praise God for allowing us to share the good news of Jesus Christ. We also thank Mauck & Baker for standing with us. Without their help, the City of Chicago would not only have silenced us, but also deprived several thousand people of the opportunity to decide for themselves how to respond to this message of hope.” said Pastor Teesdale.

Full Opinion:

http://mauckbaker.com/CB1FDC/assets/files/News/Teesdale%20Opinion%20and%20Order_May%2026,%202011.pdf

CONTACT MAUCK & BAKER at             (312) 726-6454       or www.tcpr.net

Conservative radio host and a former republican candidate for Illinois governor Dan Proft debated homosexual activist Anthony Martinez of The Civil Rights Agenda about gay “rights” and civil unions last night on FOX Chicago News:

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/playlist/18565/2501527?cpt=8&title=new_gay_news&wpid=3139

Kelly Shackelford, head of the pro-family Free Market Foundation in Texas says a case to be argued next Monday is “the biggest case in the country on religious freedom.” Government officials are arguing that elementary school students have NO First Amendment rights, therefore allowing religious discrimination against them.

This case would immediately impact 41 million students nationwide, and because of the gravity of the case, both Kenneth Starr, judge and former special prosecutor, and Paul Clement, former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, have joined the team defending the rights of students.

The case, Morgan et al. v. Plano (Texas) Independent School District, known as the infamous “candy cane” case, is going before all 17 judges of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a rather rare occurrence. The case started eight years ago when public school officials banned eight-year-old Jonathan Morgan from giving candy canes with Jesus’ name on them to classmates at a holiday party.

School officials also confiscated one little girl’s pencils banning her and others from handing them out after school because they had the word God on them. Finally, the same officials banned an entire class sending cards to the troops overseas from writing the words “Merry Christmas” on them.

The consequences of this case are serious: no religious freedom, no right to respectfully express a different opinion than the government, religious discrimination permitted, and no way for parents to protect their children.

Please pray this weekend and especially on Monday about this case. Pray for the lawyers arguing the case. If you can, make an announcement at church on Sunday about the case. Encourage members of your congregation to pray.

For more information, visit www.FirstAmendmentFreedoms.LibertyInstitute.org.