Homosexual activists emboldened by Illinois’ civil union law are attempting to force Christian agencies that receive state funds to license foster families either to place children with homosexuals or lose state funding, which would jeopardize the placements of thousands of children.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Gov. Pat Quinn and the Department of Children and Family Services are investigating these Christian foster care agencies for discrimination because of their religiously based decisions not to place children in the homes of homosexual partners.

If homosexuals were centrally concerned for the welfare of children, they would leave religious agencies to act according to the dictates of their faith traditions. But as usual the ignoble desire of homosexuals to compel the entirety of society to affirm their attractions, volitional acts, and moral and political beliefs takes precedence over all else. It supersedes the rights of parents, speech rights, religious liberty, and even the welfare of children. It’s astonishing to witness such monumental narcissism and selfishness in the service of normalizing perversion. Of course, the real motivations are speciously papered over with “civil rights” rhetoric to deceive the gullible.

They justify this effort by claiming that the refusal to place children in homes of homosexuals violates laws that prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This points to the disastrous cultural consequences that will continue to accrue because homosexual activists and their ideological allies were allowed to add the term “sexual orientation” to anti-discrimination laws and policies. Of course, they were aided by the ignorance, cowardice, and silence of conservatives who failed to fight vigorously against such a feckless inclusion.

Take ACTION: Contact Gov. Quinn and Attorney General Madigan to urge them not to discriminate against Christian organizations.

Individuals and organizations have a moral right to discriminate among volitional behaviors. That is to say, they have an inalienable right to make judgments about what constitutes moral behavior. Homosexuality is not equivalent to race, and disapproval of homosexuality is not equivalent to racism. Homosexuality is a condition centrally defined by subjective feelings and volitional acts, and as such, should never be included in policy or law with conditions that are objective and non-behavioral.

What are the essential criteria for evaluating the suitability of families seeking to foster or adopt children? They must have the financial means to support them and be able to provide a clean, nurturing environment. If it is a couple, they must demonstrate that they have a stable, committed relationship. But is that all? If so, then we as a society should cheerfully turn over suffering children to the care of loving, committed, stable incestuous couples who are able to provide a safe, nurturing environment.

And we should cheerfully and comfortably relinquish suffering children to the care of loving, stable, committed polyamorous families who are able to provide a safe, nurturing, environment.

And what about lesbian sisters who demonstrate similar relational qualities and can provide the same material security that a heterosexual married couple demonstrates and provides?

Love, commitment, stability, safety, and support are, indeed, essential factors when evaluating the appropriateness of a family seeking to foster or adopt, but so too is the moral nature of the relationship of the family. Those who recoil at the idea of incestuous couples or polyamorous partners fostering or adopting do so out of the same kind of moral evaluation of the nature of incest and polyamory as others do out of a moral evaluation of homosexuality. Those who would prohibit loving, stable incestuous couples or polyamorous partners from fostering or adopting do so for the same kind of reason that those who would prohibit loving homosexual couples from fostering or adopting do: a belief that these kinds of relationships are morally flawed.

Some argue that the belief that homosexual conduct is morally flawed is a prejudice and cannot be imposed on all of society. But then one could reasonably argue that the belief that adult consensual incest and polyamory are immoral is an ignorant, antiquated, provincial, bigoted, hateful prejudice that ought not to be imposed on all of society.

One could also make an effective case that gender complementarity occupies such a central place in both marriage and parenting that incestuous and polyamorous partnerships are in some ways more defensible than homosexual couplings.

Moreover, incestuous couples could make the case that their desire to adopt reveals their sense of responsibility in that procreation could result in serious birth defects. Shouldn’t loving incestuous couples be allowed to have children? Is it fair to allow society’s prejudice to prevent them from this basic right?

And what about all the hard to place children waiting for loving homes? Doesn’t opposition to adoption or fostering by incestuous or polyamorous partners (to borrow the fatuous words from Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen Chapman), “mainly serve to harm children in dire need of stable, loving families”?

The Tribune points out that there are 57 other private agencies with “non-restictive” policies to which homosexual couples can apply for fostering licenses, but according to ACLU attorney Benjamin Wolf, “‘We don’t know for sure if a loving lesbian or gay family turned away from a discriminatory agency is necessarily going to go to another agency because of the disruption and harm caused to them.'” Perhaps those homosexual couples who are that emotionally fragile are not constitutionally suited for the arduous task of fostering.

Wolf also said 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.” Homosexuals constitute between 2-4 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 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.

Compare that to the impact on the pool of prospective foster care parents that will result when all theologically orthodox Christian agencies are forced to cease operations. Who’s really being “irresponsible”?

If we measure harm only in concrete, measurable ways — dirty house, lack of food, untended infections, emotional detachment — then we ill-serve the children we purport to care so deeply about. When organizations make decisions regarding the placement of children in families, it is not only appropriate but critical that they take into account the moral nature of the relationships of the potential caretakers.

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.

Homosexual activists emboldened by Illinois’ civil union law are attempting to force Christian agencies that receive state funds to license foster families either to place children with homosexuals or lose state funding, which would jeopardize the placements of thousands of children.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Gov. Pat Quinn and the Department of Children and Family Services are investigating these Christian foster care agencies for discrimination because of their religiously based decisions not to place children in the homes of homosexual partners.

If homosexuals were centrally concerned for the welfare of children, they would leave religious agencies to act according to the dictates of their faith traditions. But as usual the ignoble desire of homosexuals to compel the entirety of society to affirm their attractions, volitional acts, and moral and political beliefs takes precedence over all else. It supersedes the rights of parents, speech rights, religious liberty, and even the welfare of children. It’s astonishing to witness such monumental narcissism and selfishness in the service of normalizing perversion. Of course, the real motivations are speciously papered over with “civil rights” rhetoric to deceive the gullible.

They justify this effort by claiming that the refusal to place children in homes of homosexuals violates laws that prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This points to the disastrous cultural consequences that will continue to accrue because homosexual activists and their ideological allies were allowed to add the term “sexual orientation” to anti-discrimination laws and policies. Of course, they were aided by the ignorance, cowardice, and silence of conservatives who failed to fight vigorously against such a feckless inclusion. 

Individuals and organizations have a moral right to discriminate among volitional behaviors. That is to say, they have an inalienable right to make judgments about what constitutes moral behavior. Homosexuality is not equivalent to race, and disapproval of homosexuality is not equivalent to racism. Homosexuality is a condition centrally defined by subjective feelings and volitional acts, and as such, should never be included in policy or law with conditions that are objective and non-behavioral.

What are the essential criteria for evaluating the suitability of families seeking to foster or adopt children? They must have the financial means to support them and be able to provide a clean, nurturing environment. If it is a couple, they must demonstrate that they have a stable, committed relationship. But is that all? If so, then we as a society should cheerfully turn over suffering children to the care of loving, committed, stable incestuous couples who are able to provide a safe, nurturing environment.

And we should cheerfully and comfortably relinquish suffering children to the care of loving, stable, committed polyamorous families who are able to provide a safe, nurturing, environment.

And what about lesbian sisters who demonstrate similar relational qualities and can provide the same material security that a heterosexual married couple demonstrates and provides?

Love, commitment, stability, safety, and support are, indeed, essential factors when evaluating the appropriateness of a family seeking to foster or adopt, but so too is the moral nature of the relationship of the family. Those who recoil at the idea of incestuous couples or polyamorous partners fostering or adopting do so out of the same kind of moral evaluation of the nature of incest and polyamory as others do out of a moral evaluation of homosexuality. Those who would prohibit loving, stable incestuous couples or polyamorous partners from fostering or adopting do so for the same kind of reason that those who would prohibit loving homosexual couples from fostering or adopting do: a belief that these kinds of relationships are morally flawed.

Some argue that the belief that homosexual conduct is morally flawed is a prejudice and cannot be imposed on all of society. But then one could reasonably argue that the belief that adult consensual incest and polyamory are immoral is an ignorant, antiquated, provincial, bigoted, hateful prejudice that ought not to be imposed on all of society.

One could also make an effective case that gender complementarity occupies such a central place in both marriage and parenting that incestuous and polyamorous partnerships are in some ways more defensible than homosexual couplings.

Moreover, incestuous couples could make the case that their desire to adopt reveals their sense of responsibility in that procreation could result in serious birth defects. Shouldn’t loving incestuous couples be allowed to have children? Is it fair to allow society’s prejudice to prevent them from this basic right?

And what about all the hard to place children waiting for loving homes? Doesn’t opposition to adoption or fostering by incestuous or polyamorous partners (to borrow the fatuous words from Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen Chapman), “mainly serve to harm children in dire need of stable, loving families”?

The Tribune points out that there are 57 other private agencies with “non-restictive” policies to which homosexual couples can apply for fostering licenses, but according to ACLU attorney Benjamin Wolf, “‘We don’t know for sure if a loving lesbian or gay family turned away from a discriminatory agency is necessarily going to go to another agency because of the disruption and harm caused to them.'” Perhaps those homosexual couples who are that emotionally fragile are not constitutionally suited for the arduous task of fostering.

Wolf also said 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.” Homosexuals constitute between 2-4 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 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.

Compare that to the impact on the pool of prospective foster care parents that will result when all theologically orthodox Christian agencies are forced to cease operations. Who’s really being “irresponsible”?

If we measure harm only in concrete, measurable ways — dirty house, lack of food, untended infections, emotional detachment — then we ill-serve the children we purport to care so deeply about. When organizations make decisions regarding the placement of children in families, it is not only appropriate but critical that they take into account the moral nature of the relationships of the potential caretakers.

Urges Vacationers to Make Their Reservation Today at Timber Creek

Chicago, Ill — David Smith, leader of the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), today called on President Barack Obama and Illinois’ Governor Pat Quinn to apologize. America’s President, an Illinois politician, declared this week that same sex marriage is legal.

At the same time a homosexual couple launched a specious legal attack on a law-abiding Illinois Christian businessman, Jim Walder, for refusing to allow his Bed and Breakfast to be used by the gay couple for a celebration of their “civil union.” The gay activists also went to the newspapers, demanding an apology from Walder.

“The phrase ‘civil union’ is another deceptive phrase in the liberal lexicon. There is nothing either civil or unifying about homosexuality,” said Smith. “Liberal politicians have opened this Pandora’s Box on America and Walder doesn’t need to apologize for anything. Rather, Barack Obama and Pat Quinn need to apologize to him, and all the citizens of this nation, for forcing counterfeit marriage on us.”

Today on the IFI website Laurie Higgins, director of the Division of School Advocacy for IFI, published a comprehensive analysis of this assault on freedom.

In the article Higgins observes that it was just a few weeks ago that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed the “civil unions” bill into law. She writes, “The most recent assault by those who view our side’s cowardly truce as their golden opportunity is taking place in Illinois. Just one month after Governor Patrick Quinn signed the civil union bill into law, a homosexual couple has filed complaints with both the Illinois Attorney General and the Illinois Department of Human Rights for the refusal of two innkeepers to rent out their privately-owned bed and breakfasts for a civil union ceremony and reception.”

Walder and his family are also on the receiving end of a deluge of poisonous, hate-filled letters and phone calls from leftists who demand that we accept their life choices.

Smith urged everyone to support Jim Walder. “I’ll be spending some time this year at Timber Creek B&B in Paxton,” said Smith, “and I urge everyone to do the same. This humble business owner has a new status in my book: hero. Let’s all get behind him!”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Family Research Council condemned today’s decision by the Obama administration to eliminate key provisions of a Bush administration regulation that enforced laws protecting the conscience rights of medical professionals who oppose abortion.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

“Today’s erosion of conscience protections for medical professionals is a blow both to medicine and the right to practice one’s deeply-held convictions. I am troubled that the Obama Administration has issued a final rule that strikes key sections of 2008 conscience regulations and weakens their enforcement substantially. The President chose to reject the views of the vast majority of people – close to two hundred thousand – who provided comment in 2009 opposing any attempt to rescind the conscience regulations.

“It’s a sad fact that discrimination against health care workers who object to participating in abortion is a continuing threat from both federally-funded organizations and the government. The previous conscience regulations were implemented to enforce the conscience laws passed over the last 35 years, and they required that federally-funded entities certify their compliance with three conscience laws. Removing the certification requirement will make enforcement harder, not easier.

“The rule also removes the definitions that ensured protections were maintained for individuals working in federally-funded organizations. Rather than provide greater clarity to the law’s protections for those who object to ‘assisting in the performance’ of abortion, the removal of these definitions creates greater ambiguity and will make enforcement more difficult.

“While we support the Office of Civil Rights investigating claims of discrimination and allowing people to file such complaints, this is insufficient to ensure such discrimination does not take place. Although the new regulations may offer an imaginary fig-leaf of political cover on conscience rights, they severely limit the enforcement provision in the previous conscience regulations.

“We therefore urge the U.S. Congress to enact conscience protections by passing Dr. John Fleming’s (R-LA) Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361), as well as Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski’s (D-IL) “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (H.R. 3) and Rep. Joe Pitt’s (R-PN) “Protect Life Act” (H.R. 358). Americans overwhelmingly believe that conscience rights are legitimate and must be protected,” Perkins concluded.

CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller,             (866) FRC-NEWS       or             (866)-372-6397

Last week Apple removed the Manhattan Declaration iPhone/iPad application from the iTunes Store. This was apparently done in response to small, but vocal group of people who complained that the declaration amounts to hate speech for its stance against homosexual so-called “marriage.”

An article by the Christian Post defines the Manhattan Declaration well:

The Manhattan Declaration was unveiled last November, outlining principles that uphold the sanctity of life, the historic understanding of marriage, and religious liberty.

It was drafted by Dr. Timothy George of Samford University, evangelical leader Chuck Colson, and Dr. Robert George of Princeton University who were concerned about growing efforts to marginalize the Christian voice in the public square. They drafted the document to affirm fundamental truths and to encourage Christians to be uncompromising in their faith.

The document has been endorsed by prominent evangelical, Orthodox and Catholic leaders and so far nearly half a million signatures have been added to it.

This action by Apple marks another instance, along with the SPLC’s labeling of IFI, American Family Association and the Family Research Council as a “hate groups,” where advocacy on traditional Judeo-Christian family-value issues has led to the “hate” label being applied.

We are fast approaching the point where simple opposition to homosexual “marriage” will be considered hate speech, silencing not only politicians and citizens, but pastors and churches as well.

Supporters are pushing to have the Manhattan Declaration application restored to the iTunes Store. Follow the Manhattan Declaration on twitter via@ManhattanDec for all the latest on this story.

In an alarming story, a woman in Grand Rapids, Michigan is facing possible charges from the state Department of Civil Rights for expressing her Christian faith, not in the public square but in church!.

The 31 year-old woman has been formally cited for the crime of “discrimination” in an alleged violation of the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against those of other faiths when she posted a note on her church bulletin board for simple seeking a “Christian roommate.” Even though it should be obvious that her private advertisement in a church is well within her legal and constitutional rights, she now needs legal help to avoid punishment.

If there was ever any question in one’s mind that Christianity is a target of our culture, this incident should erase all doubts. This single woman was simply seeking a roommate to share expenses. She is not a landlord, an apartment manger or property owner.

Does she not have any freedom of association or religious liberty rights anymore? Apparently, a court will now have to answer this question because the government in Michigan can’t seem to see her rights through the foggy haze of political correctness.

In a recent meeting of the Marion City Council, local resident Ken Kessler proposed erecting a display of the Ten Commandments that would stand in a public square. There have been two meetings so far where the issue has been discussed, but no decision has yet been made. According to Mayor Robert L. Butler, the Ten Commandments monument will again be on the agenda during the next meeting of the Marion City Council on Wednesday, August 25th, 2010.

It didn’t take long for self-avowed atheist Rob Sherman to rush downstate to Marion and threaten the city with a lawsuit if the monument of the Ten Commandments is approved.

Sherman, who lives in northern Illinois, considers himself an authority on constitutional law regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers when it comes to the expression of religious liberty in the public square. Sherman, who drives an over-sized RV which could pass as an eighteen wheeler, rolled into Marion and lectured the town fathers about the constitutionality of the proposed Ten Commandments monument.

It must be noted that Ken Kessler is not looking for government money to pay for the religious display which has the backing of a vast majority of Marion’s citizenry. But this fact doesn’t matter to Sherman whose RV has a depiction of a penny on its side featuring his image and the humanistic, if not blasphemous words “In Rob We Trust”.

Sherman has made a name for himself by perpetuating the misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, he has often been successful in his attempts to scrub references to America’s Judeo-Christian heritage from any public venue.

And as you may remember, the Illinois General Assembly passed a bill which was signed into law that would provide a “moment of silence” that would be observed by public school students at the beginning of each school day. Sherman used his daughter — who was attending a public high school at the time — to challenge the “moment of silence” law which many people, including teachers, believed was a good idea.

The “moment of silence” had nothing to do with prayer — unless a student wanted to use that time to pray. Sherman claimed this moment would take away from his daughter’s access to the thirty seconds of education she would miss if students observed a moment of silent reflection. Sherman found a liberal activist judge who agreed with him and the issue ended up in the courts.

Sherman has also been actively pushing his atheistic morality in another southern Illinois town. The defender of state-sanctioned atheism found another target in his visit downstate. Sherman filed a federal lawsuit against a group named “Friends of the Cross” who erected an 11 story high cross on private property. Sherman alleges the group’s use of a $20,000 state grant to pay for the Christian symbol was unconstitutional and wants the group to reimburse the state. The cross is located on private land in the Shawnee National Forest, near Alto Pass and Carbondale, in southwestern Illinois.

Individuals like Sherman bully small towns with the threat of lawsuits many of these communities cannot afford to fight. They are assisted by liberal activist judges and have had considerable success as these jurists hand down legal rulings which are not consistent with the views of America’s constitutional framers.

From Sherman’s own website — and in his own words — he uses bullying tactics when he writes the Mayor of Marion can expect “… the prospect of a long, expensive and losing legal battle if he tries it.”

In 1958, a Supreme Court Justice demonstrated prophetic insight in giving his dissenting opinion concerning the case Baer v. Kolmorgen. He warned that the Court must be careful in its usage of the term “separation of church and state” because the public would believe those words appeared within the body of the Constitution. In the future, there might be some who would falsely attribute the phrase to the document itself. This judge truly had a vision of what was to come.

Today, far too many Americans believe that the phrase “separation of church and state” was indeed written somewhere in the U.S. Constitution. The truth is the phrase appears in no formal document penned by the Founding Fathers. But it has been used by liberal judicial activists and the judiciary to attack publicly funded monuments and other displays which represent America’s Judeo-Christian history.

Sherman himself cannot explain why the words “In God We Trust” appear on U.S. currency. He and his atheist brethren cannot explain why every session of Congress starts with a prayer. Sherman cannot explain why, before every session, the U.S. Supreme Court itself prays to God for guidance. But perhaps Sherman can explain, but he prefers not to, in order to advance his own agenda.

Many of the absurd rulings handed down by American courts during the last 40 years have resulted from the misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause. Something called the “right to privacy” has trumped natural law and, subsequently, religious liberty in America. The Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion in 1973 was based on the specious argument of the “right to privacy”. Laws which a vast majority of Americans agree with have been struck down, due to the fact the private desires or wishes of one individual hold sway over the majority despite the fact the United States is a democratic republic. But many have used the courts to circumvent the rights of the people. The words “of the people, by the people and for the people” have fell victim to the corruption of the word “tolerance” in our society.

The Mayor and City Council of Marion have yet to decide whether the monument featuring the Ten Commandments will stand in Tower Square. Whether or not Sherman will be successful in his lawsuit against “Friends of the Cross” will be decided by the courts. However, we can all pray Americans and people of faith will find the wherewithal to fend off the continuing attacks regarding the expression of religious liberty in our society. It must be noted Marion’s Mayor and City Council say if someone of another faith desires to put up a display in Tower Square, they will be permitted to do so, if the proposed Ten Commandments monument is approved.

Yesterday we mentioned the good news regarding the rehiring of University of Illinois adjunct professor, Dr. Kenneth Howell, a Catholic professor who was fired for teaching Catholic Doctrine.

Well, some are concerned about the new conditions attendant to Dr. Howell’s reconfigured position. Read more about this HERE from Elizabeth Scalia writing on the First Things blog.

From the Alliance Defense Fund

U of I says Kenneth Howell will continue as adjunct professor

Editor’s Note: There’s some good news from the academic front for a change. Attorneys representing the University of Illinois contacted the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to inform them that Dr. Kenneth Howell will be permitted to teach courses again Fall Semester. (See story below.)

This is, indeed, good news, but, unfortunately it comes right on the heels of an academic travesty. Julea Ward, a graduate student in Eastern Michigan University’s counseling program, lost her case against the school. She was kicked out of the program when she referred a homosexual client to another counselor because of a conflict between her religious beliefs and counseling someone on a homosexual relationship. Ms. Ward was told that in order to remain in the program, she would have to engage in “remediation,” in order to change her beliefs. She refused remediation, was interrogated, mocked, and ultimately dismissed from the program. With the help of the ADF, she sued, and lost. The ADF plans on appealing the decision. (Read more HERE.) ~Laurie Higgins

The University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana confirmed to Alliance Defense Fund attorneys Thursday that it will once again allow popular professor Dr. Kenneth Howell to teach on Catholicism after recently firing him for explaining the Roman Catholic Church’s position on human sexual behavior to members of his class.

ADF attorneys representing Howell sent a letter to university officials on July 12 explaining that the university’s actions violated his rights protected by the First Amendment and asked that he be reinstated.

“A university cannot censor professors’ speech — including classroom speech related to the topic of the class — merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student. We greatly appreciate the university’s move to put Professor Howell back in the classroom, but we will be watching carefully to make sure that his academic freedom is protected throughout the university’s ongoing process,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French.

A letter from the University of Illinois Office of University Counsel admits no wrongdoing on the part of the university but states, “The School of Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics will be contacting Dr. Howell to offer him the opportunity to teach Religion 127, Introduction to Catholicism, on a visiting instructional appointment at the University of Illinois, for the fall 2010 semester. Dr. Howell will be appointed and paid by the University for this adjunct teaching assignment.”

The letter then adds that a university committee will continue its investigation of Howell’s situation.

Howell, who had been teaching at the university since 2001, was relieved of his teaching duties based in part on an anonymous complaint sent via e-mail to university officials. The e-mail was sent by the friend of an anonymous student who claimed to be “offended” by a May 4 e-mail Howell sent to students elaborating on a class discussion concerning Catholic beliefs about sexual behavior.

The May 4 e-mail from Howell addressed a May 3 lecture in which he explained how the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual conduct. He accurately stated the church’s teaching that homosexual conduct is morally wrong, framing the issue in the context of natural moral law.

Federal Issue

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to honor the religious liberties of American citizens on its own property. ADF has sent a letter to the High Court deploring a recent incident, in which police officers told a group of students that it was against the law for them to pray on the steps of the Supreme Court building.

Teacher Maureen Rigo took her American History class from Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona on an educational tour of the Supreme Court complex on May 5th. While there, they stood to the side at the bottom of the Supreme Court steps and prayed quietly in a conversational tone so as not to draw attention. Nonetheless, a police officer approached them and told them to stop praying immediately, and that their activities were against the law.

“Christians shouldn’t be silenced for exercising their religious beliefs through quiet prayer on public property,” says Nate Kellum, senior counsel for ADF. “The last place you’d expect this kind of obvious disregard for the First Amendment would be on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court itself.”

Kellum says that it is clear that Mrs. Rigo and her class were disciplined because of the content of their speech. “Evidently, people may engage in all sorts of conversational expression on Supreme Court grounds unless that expression happens to involve prayer. In so doing, Supreme Court police have targeted a particular viewpoint for censorship. They have singled out religious prayer as the only form of conversation to be silenced.”

Supreme Court officials defended their actions based on a federal law prohibiting parades and processions on Supreme Court premises.

In another case involving prayer, a North Carolina pastor was recently dismissed from his duties as an honorary chaplain for the North Carolina House of Representatives. Pastor Ron Baity of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem was invited to offer invocations during one of the weeks of the legislative session. However, his invitation was withdrawn when he refused to remove the name of Jesus from his prayers. He was told by the House clerk, “We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.”

1 Peter 2:6-8 comes to mind:

Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.

Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,

and

A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense. [Emphasis added]

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Recently, President Barack Obama and others in his administration (including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) have been using the term “freedom of worship.” That’s a significant departure from the constitutional phrase with which most Americans are familiar: “freedom of religion.”

The truth is that changing the word “religion” to “worship” drastically changes what is protected. Read the words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” That “free exercise” wording protects those whose religion entails much more than worship.

The Left — specifically the ACLU — has been extremely successful in misleading the American public into believing that the “separation of church and state” is a constitutional principle. It is not. As a result, far too many people of faith, including pastors, have confined themselves and their worldview within the church walls while godless philosophies and agendas overwhelm the public square.

Christians are called to live our religion, not just observe services on Sundays. An attempt to bamboozle the American people again into believing that the First Amendment only protects the “freedom of worship” will lead to banishing religious expression outside of the church setting in all its forms.

The freedom to live out one’s faith in the public square is already colliding with the liberal idol of “tolerance.” Issues of freedom and liberty are front and center in the current confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan for Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The protection of true liberty must be paramount when selecting justices, as liberty or its loss affects our ability to freely exercise our religion.

Founding Father John Adams wrote in a letter to his wife in 1775 warning that “Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” Today, in our state and federal legislatures and in our courts of law, true liberty is losing its meaning and authority in society. New generations of citizens are either ignorant of or unimpressed by the battles fought to gain and sustain it, and the unhindered expression of Christian faith is becoming a primary target and casualty.

The Left’s advance of “tolerance” is not simply respecting one another’s views, but the forced acceptance of a political philosophical perspective that would trump traditional religious mores and practice. Francis J. Beckwithputs it this way:

Liberal tolerance is a sham. Although portrayed by its advocates as an open, tolerant, and neutral perspective, it is a dogma whose proponents tolerate no rivals. Those of us who are concerned with presenting and defending our faith in a post-Christian culture must be aware of this sort of challenge, one that masquerades as open, tolerant, and liberating, but in reality is dogmatic, partisan, and coercive.

There are many examples of this happening today. Recently, in the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Christian student group arguing that an organization must accept anyone as a member or officer whether or not they agree with its policies. Of course, this is ridiculous. Forcing a Christian group to allow atheists and agnostics to serve in leadership positions is as absurd as requiring the College Democrats to allow Republicans to serve in leadership positions or the Friends of Israel club to allow members of the Aryan Nation to be members and leaders.

Compulsory “tolerance” is undermining pluralism, which allows different groups to disagree. The intentional and strategic move away from the First Amendment’s guarantee of “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship” is an ominous sign of a renewed effort to further marginalize and even censor conservative people of faith.

Read more:

‘Freedom of Worship’ Worries: New religious freedom rhetoric within the Obama administration draws concern. (ManhattanDeclaration.org)

Chuck Colson on Freedom of Worship (YouTube.com)

On Monday, June 28th, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that in certain circumstances public universities can override a Christian student group’s right to choose its own leadership. 

The case arose out of a situation involving the Christian Legal Society (CLS) at the Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. The school had created a very unique policy that required that “all-comers” be welcome for its Registered Student Organizations — saying that student organizations may not deny membership or the opportunity to seek leadership to any student regardless of their status or beliefs.

While the local CLS chapter welcomes anyone to attend the meetings and events, it requires its leadership and voting members to agree with its basic Christian beliefs and traditional biblical standards. The most controversial portion of their by-laws was the requirement that leaders not engage in sexual behavior outside of one man, one woman marriage.

Because of this position, Hastings refused to recognize CLS as an official student organization and thereby denied them access to funds, facilities, and channels of communication that are available to student groups. 

CLS sued, claiming the policy violated their right of free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion. Yesterday’s decision upheld the school’s policy as being constitutional. 

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, saying, in part, that “the Court should have rejected this as absurd.” Unfortunately, common sense evades those who proclaim liberal “justice.”

Fortunately, this decision is not the final word in the case. It has been sent back to the Ninth Circuit District Court to determine whether or not the policy is being applied in a discriminatory way. 

The lower court will determine whether every student group at Hastings is being forced to live by the same rules, which is unlikely. If it were, the College Democrats would be required to allow Republicans to be members and the Friends of Israel club would have to allow members of the Aryan Nation to be members. Such efforts, of course, are absurd.

Since the college is probably not doing everything they can to make sure that Atheist Student Group admit the officers of the local Intelligent Design Club, this policy is almost certainly not being applied in a non-discriminatory way and it will ultimately be thrown out. 

But that does not mean there isn’t anything to be concerned about. 

In a culture growing more and more hostile to traditional religion, specifically bible-believing Christianity, we should be concerned that our institutions of “higher learning” would go to all this trouble to ostracize students who believe sexuality outside of marriage is immoral. And we should be even more concerned that our highest Court has refused to acknowledge the First Amendment’s preeminence here, which guarantees the freedom of association and religious practice.

Read The Supreme Court’s full opinion HERE

Activist Judge Rules National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional!

Last week a federal judge in Wisconsin demonstrated just how important judicial appointments are to the preservation of our basic liberties when he ruled that a federal statute that sets a day for the National Day of Prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Since it was established by Congress in 1952, the National Day of Prayer has provided an opportunity for all Americans to voluntarily pray for our nation according to their own faith. But the Freedom From Religion Foundation claimed that the National Day of Prayer creates a “hostile environment” for nonbelievers and filed the lawsuit to abolish this religious event.

Illinois Family Institute is joining with the Alliance Defense Fund in urging the Obama administration to appeal this ruling that not only undermines the National Day of Prayer, but the underlying heritage and tradition of the American people that dates back to our nation’s founding.

We need you to take action today:

1. Sign the petition to President Obama to urge him to appeal the court’s decision that strikes down the National Day of Prayer statute – before the appeal deadline of June 15 – at www.savethendop.org
2. Forward this email to your friends and spread the word.
3. Pray for the National Day of Prayer.

Also, in view of this slap in the face to the role and value of religion in our Country, will you take a minute to send an email to your minister encouraging him to encourage the congregation to be good stewards of the liberties we have in America? President Ronald Reagan once warned:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Every day different segments of society — from farmers to doctors, from Planned Parenthood to Gun Owners of America, from Teachers’ Unions to School Choice proponents and all points in between — are at the Capitol in Springfield bearing “witness” to our legislators, letting them know that “they” are a part of this state and are affected by and care about what our state government leaders are doing. The witness of the church has been silent for too long and, to be honest, the most effective witness on behalf of the church is the presence of ministers because they represent more than just themselves.

Groups that push for the kinds of decision rendered yesterday have risen and grown strong because of the absence of the influence of the Church when it comes to what is going on in the halls of government and in our courtrooms. Martin Luther King said it this way, “If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”

Progressives are like pig farmers. In an effort to bury opposing viewpoints they sling pejorative slop, labeling as bigot, hater, wingnut or racist those with whom they disagree. It’s the height of intellectual sloth.

The ad hominem approach chief among logical fallacies undergirds an effort to both marginalize conservative viewpoints and avoid arguing on the merits the controversies of the day. For liberals, to set sail in fair debate is to navigate treacherous waters.

We’ve seen this tired tactic abused ad nauseum in recent days by the mainstream media and Democrats. Aided by hard-left outfits such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”), all too eager to provide expert analysis tailor-made for jaundiced journalism, liberal elites have been desperate to throw poison on bourgeoning grassroots opposition to Obamas careening Marxist agenda. It’s straight out of the progressive playbook: Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Hence, in the face of zero supporting evidence, Tea Party conservatives, Constitutionalists, pro-life and pro-family Americans, and generally any patriot who disagrees with the Obama administration, are smeared with hates broad brush.

Grandma and Grandpa; your fireman neighbor; school teachers; pastors; butchers; bakers; and candlestick makers are now potentially violent right-wing extremists. They are, as Mark Potok, Huffington Post columnist and SPLC director puts it: shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism, and are widely linked to hate and vigilante groups. (Knock it off, Mark. With the exception of your fellow moveon.org-types, the vast majority of Americans aren’t biting.)

Nonetheless, every once in a while, as it goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut. While I rarely agree with the Mark Potok of the world, today, on at least one issue, I find myself doing so. Cult leader Fred Phelps and his Westboro brood of God hates F-gs fame are infused to the marrow with pure, unadulterated hate.

Phelps hates homosexuals. He hates the military. He hates America. He apparently hates everyone. But he also hurts people. Intentionally, I believe.

Phelps contends that every time a U.S. soldier dies in combat, it’s God’s judgment for our nation’s affirmation of homosexual sin. Best known for disrupting military funerals, Phelps is and was a lot of things: He’s a former Kansas Democratic gubernatorial candidate; he was an Al Gore fundraiser for the ex-Veeps 1988 presidential run; he’s a self-styled Baptist minister; and he’s a buffoon.

But one man decided to fight back. As reported by the AP: Albert Snyder of York, PA, is suing [Phelps] church that picketed the funeral of his son, who died in a vehicle accident in Iraq. The Westboro Baptist Church contends U.S. military deaths are God’s punishment for tolerance of homosexuality. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

The appeals court ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 in court costs to Westboro and its pastor, Fred Phelps. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly has pledged to donate that amount. An American Legion spokesman says the veterans group has collected more than $12,000 in donations. People can also donate directly to Snyder on a web site in his son’s name. (To donate go to www.mathewsnyder.org).

Indeed, Phelps and his incestuous band of Dale Carnegie rejects represent hate personified. Rather than taking the biblical love the sinner, hate the sin approach to sexual immorality, these false prophets preach counterfeit Christianity, devoid of the faith’s core tenet: redemption.

They labor under the misconception that, somehow, they are exempt from the Gospel’s central judge not lest ye be judged provision. As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one. Romans 3:10.

I pray that Phelps and Co. will both repent and seek Christ’s redemption for the harm they’ve caused people like the Snyders. I also pray that liberals will repent. By lumping together with Phelps those who recognize traditional, biblical sexual morality, homosexual activists and the left-wing media trivialize true hate.

Indeed, many Americans perhaps most adhere to the biblical notion that all sexual conduct outside the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman is sexually immoral. (Sorry liberals, that’s just the way it is; nothing personal. Despite disingenuous bleatings to the contrary, such beliefs are typically as far removed from hate as Phelps is from cuddly. Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology hold this to be true. And, as with all absolute truth, it just is.)

So, Fred Phelps aside, every time you hear some lefty like Anderson Cooper or Keith Olbermann despicably refer to Bible-believing Christians as homophobes, or who call grandma a teabagger (slang for a vile homosexual act), consider who the real haters are.

Whenever Mark Potok, Rachel Maddow or some liberal politico in Congress attempts to equate conservative Joe to a right wing extremists or a domestic terrorist, contemplate who the true bigots are.

The palpable irony is that leftists with their slanderous name-calling, harsh judgments and ad hominem attacks are, in truth, more like Phelps than those they falsely accuse.

Progress demands a vigorous, open and honest debate. Progressives should quit the empty name calling and stop running scared from true progress.

Stories about disturbing crimes in urban areas are nothing new. Almost every day we read or hear reports of murder, assaults, carjacking and robberies. These stories are evidence of a corrupt culture and symptoms of a world far removed from God and His will.

Details about two recent crimes highlight the lunacy of so-called “hate crimes” laws. The first incident happened a few weeks ago in Chicago when three twenty-something year-old men were arrested for attacking another man on a CTA train. According to news reports, these men were originally charged with misdemeanor battery, but because specific slurs were used during the attack, the charges were upgraded to felony hate crime.

The second incident involves the murder of three people in the Chicago suburb of Darien. Speaking to reporters about this heinous crime, DuPage County State’s Attorney Joe Birkett said, “this crime was born out of hatred.” Authorities report that a custody dispute over a 13-month-old boy was the motive for the killings. Two men, both in their twenties have been charged with the death of this Darien family.

Despite the fact that the State’s Attorney clearly and succinctly labeled this heinous crime a “hate crime” — additional charges were not filed.

Let me pause here for an important disclaimer: My criticism of “hate crime” laws in no way, shape or form suggests approval of criminal activity or verbal assaults. If the perpetrators of either of these crimes are tried and found guilty — they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for that crime. The beliefs or feelings or hurtful words of the perpetrators should not affect the specific charges or the sentences.

Special Protection for Some
These two cases not only call into question the purpose of “hate crime” laws, but underscore the disproportionate and subjective ways they could be applied.

First, how many of the 120 so-called “hate crimes” that occurred in Illinois during 2008 were perpetrated by members of that same protected class? For example — are there any “hate-crimes” that include black-on-black crime by African-Americans who used the “n” word? How about similar cases involving Hispanic, Asian or other ethnic groups?

If not, why not? If it simply takes a verbal assault during the commission of a crime to warrant an additional criminal charge of “hate” — as we see here in the CTA case — then every gang-related assault or murder in which racially or ethnically charged language is used should warrant additional “hate crime” charges, shouldn’t they? Liberal activists want us to believe that special government protection through “hate crime” laws is needed to better protect certain minority groups from the intolerant and bigoted majority.

This brings me to my second point. If lawmakers want to use special protection laws to protect only certain groups of people — a select few — aren’t they in fact discriminating against everyone else? Why is this okay? State Attorney Birkett clearly identified “hate” in the triple murder in Darien, but since it is not the right kind of “hate,” no additional charges will be filed against the alleged killers.

Yet another dimension to the problem is that there is evidence that “hate crime” laws have been used against people of faith who merely dared to question or oppose the homosexual “rights” political agenda. In such cases, these pastors or church members were charged with a hate crime for politically incorrect speech, rather than for any physical harm or threat against persons engaging in homosexuality. (See ‘Philadelphia 11‘ story.)

Two-Tier Justice
“Hate crime” laws set up a two-tier system of justice, which in my opinion, makes them unconstitutional. How can we have “equal protection” for all (14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) if we legislate “special protection” for some? I do not think we can.

What’s amazing is that if three men assault another man using homosexual slurs, the crime will get special government attention as a “hate crime.” But if two men carefully plan and carry out the murder of a family of three, that is not considered a “hate crime” and does not get the same special government attention because these victims are not part of a specially protected group.

And that is the bottom line. “Hate crime” laws set up a politically correct hierarchy of victims and provide prosecutors and judges with a tool to manipulate and coerce.

Every crime should be prosecuted equally.

Prosecute crimes-not thoughts and words
Violence against any person should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, including violent crimes against people because they self-identify as “gay.” But “hate crime” legislation makes politically incorrect beliefs and language a basis for harsher treatment in criminal proceedings.

Perpetrators of crimes should be punished for their acts, but society ought not engage in the dangerous practice of criminalizing thoughts, feelings, or words that may or may not underlay the commission of a crime.