"This is pure and simple discrimination against religious speech." Upon learning of the cancellation, the club's student leader attempted to negotiate with the administration, offering to meet every other week and find a volunteer club advisor as a way to cut expenses, but the offer was declined. In the meantime, the ADF attorney lists other clubs that are still allowed to meet.

"They have a Gay-Straight Alliance, of course; they have a Key Club, a fashion club; they have a Future Lawyers of America, which is obvious why they didn't cancel that club," he notes.

"They even have a We the People Club which teaches knowledge about the Constitution, which is probably a good club for the school officials to attend." Cortman contends that "singling out a religious student club while letting the vast majority of the others remain constitutes viewpoint discrimination and is unconstitutional." Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has filed suit against a New York school district after officials cancelled a Christian club.

*****

School prayer order 'blatantly unconstitutional'

by Bill Bumpas
OneNewsNow
2/24/2010

A school prayer case in Florida has elevated into "nuclear war," declares one Christian attorney.

Liberty Counsel is representing Christian Educators Association International (CEAI) in a lawsuit against the Santa Rosa County School District after a federal judge denied CEAI's request to overturn a consent decree requiring faculty and staff to stop expressing their faith in public schools.

Mat Staver with Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow that the superintendent caved to pressure applied by the American Civil Liberties Union, and now this consent decree is putting the clamps on religious expression.

"A teacher, if she or he gets an email from a parent and the parent has 'God bless you' or scripture anywhere in the email, the teacher is prohibited from responding to that email without first taking out those words," Staver explains.

He adds that in another instance "one of the administrative assistants said that they are afraid to even pray with each other in their own cubicles for fear that they will be targets of contempt under this order." The Liberty Counsel attorney calls the order "blatantly unconstitutional" and is confident that it will be overturned by an appellate court.

The Half Hollow Hills Central School District blamed the cancellation of a few clubs on budget cuts, and it was done without advance notice, according to ADF senior counsel David Cortman -- who explains that the Ichthus Club was popular, even though the school claimed it was not. "There were over 55 students on the club roster, and as a matter of fact, when they canceled the club, over 90 students signed a petition for the club to start back up again," Cortman reports.

"This is pure and simple discrimination against religious speech." Upon learning of the cancellation, the club's student leader attempted to negotiate with the administration, offering to meet every other week and find a volunteer club advisor as a way to cut expenses, but the offer was declined. In the meantime, the ADF attorney lists other clubs that are still allowed to meet.

"They have a Gay-Straight Alliance, of course; they have a Key Club, a fashion club; they have a Future Lawyers of America, which is obvious why they didn't cancel that club," he notes.

"They even have a We the People Club which teaches knowledge about the Constitution, which is probably a good club for the school officials to attend." Cortman contends that "singling out a religious student club while letting the vast majority of the others remain constitutes viewpoint discrimination and is unconstitutional."

*****

In cahoots against abstinence

by Charlie Butts
OneNewsNow
2/23/2010

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed suit against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to obtain information about taxpayer-funded abstinence-only programs overseas and their connection with religion.

The plea is separation of church and state, and Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's Law School, says, "This case makes me want to chew nails because the ACLU is trying to promote not only a pro-abortion agenda, but does not even want to have an abstinence-only message that makes common sense." Matt StaverThe attorney laments that the Obama administration is pumping money into organizations that provide abortions, and that at the same time the ACLU wants the comparatively few dollars spent for abstinence programs dropped.

"The even more tragic thing is that I have no doubt that the ACLU is probably coordinating with the Obama administration and those that he has appointed to actually orchestrate this kind of lawsuit so that the ACLU will bring a lawsuit against this abstinence-only program, and then the federal government, who is supposed to defend this, will simply not defend it very well," the Liberty Counsel founder suspects.

Staver stresses that churches in Third World countries are often the lifeblood of many villages and towns and are the appropriate agency for dispensing abstinence information due to the lack of infrastructure in many nations.

*****

Debate bubbles over pulpit 'electioneering'

by Bill Bumpas and Jody Brown
OneNewsNow
2/22/2010

A Christian law firm is leading public debate on whether pastors can talk about political issues and candidates from the pulpit.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) recently co-sponsored a debate on the constitutionality of Internal Revenue Service restrictions on the free speech of pastors. Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with ADF, faced off against Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which argues that "pulpit-based electioneering" violates federal law and corrupts the true mission of faith communities. For Stanley, the point of contention is the Johnson Amendment of 1954, when then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas amended the tax code to prohibit any speech about a political candidate by non-profit tax-exempt entities, including churches.

"It is not for the government to decide who gets to be involved and who gets to speak and who doesn't," says Stanley. "It is for the churches of America and the pastors of America to decide what they want to speak about." As it stands now, says the attorney, the IRS has been mandating that pastors not speak out on issues like candidates and elections. "And our point is that that's not for the government to decide -- it's for pastors to decide," he explains.

Until the Johnson Amendment took effect, pastors spoke freely from the pulpit without worrying about tax exemptions, says Stanley. "The issue of a pastor's involvement in politics and elections has not been debated for the last 55 years," he points out. "So it's important that those issues be debated; it's important that people come to understand the constitutional right of a pastor to speak freely from his pulpit."

Americans United argues that the free-speech rights of religious leaders are already protected by the U.S. Constitution -- and that the only thing that houses of worship may not do is endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources for partisan campaigns.

But Stanley believes the real effect of the Johnson Amendment is that pastors are muzzled for fear of investigation by the IRS and potential loss of tax-exempt status. Rather than risk confrontation, says ADF, pastors have "self-censored" their speech [PDF] -- in the process "ignoring blatant immorality in government and foregoing the opportunities to praise moral government leaders."

*****

California college prof cited for 'anti-gay bias'

by Charlie Butts
OneNewsNow
2/18/2010

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has accused a professor in California of presenting religious views about homosexuality and abortion in an introductory health class.

Bradley Lopez, a Fresno City College instructor, is accused of telling students homosexuality is a "biological misapplication of human sexuality" that can be treated with counseling or hormone supplements, and for citing the Bible as evidence that life begins at conception to support his argument that abortion is murder. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), believes professors should have a degree of academic freedom.

"In no way was this professor harassing any students there in the class, [nor] was he badmouthing any students in the class -- and consequently there's really no reason why this professor should be ostracized," Dacus contends. "In fact, the subject matter he was...discussing was subject matter directly relevant to his course and the topic of his course."

The PJI president further argues that college campuses are supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas. "That is what college life is all about," ihe attorney notes. "You can't just have ideas on campus that only favor the ACLU's perspective. That is outrageous hypocrisy, and that is why this professor should prevail."

END