 |
          
  |
|
|
The Alliance
Defense Fund is defending a college student in Georgia who was told she must
change her beliefs on homosexuality or leave school. This reveals how the homosexual agenda is not
about equality or discrimination but rather forcing their radical secular morality
on others. Religious freedom has no
place in this agenda.
CNN
reports on the recent Supreme Court ruling that trampled on religious
freedom by ruling that the Christian Legal Society may not restrict its officer
positions to professing Christians and may not prohibit of homosexuality (or other
forms of sexual immorality) for its officers.
ACLJ
comments on the case. Excerpt:
In a dissent written by Justice Samuel
Alito, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas,
Justice Alito concluded that the majority decision "is a serious setback
for freedom of expression on this country."
From Justice Alito's dissent: "Our
First Amendment reflects a 'profound national commitment to the principle that
debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.' New York
Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). Even if the United States is
the only Nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not
change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s
decision marks a turn in that direction. Even those who find CLS’s views
objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has been treated - by
Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now this Court. I can only hope that this
decision will turn out to be an aberration."
In its amicus brief filed at the high
court, the ACLJ contended that religious groups are constitutionally protected
in following their religious beliefs.
Last
Wednesday a federal court in California heard closing
arguments in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's recent voter-enacted
constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. This is an attempt by radical liberal
activists to subvert the democratic process and force their radical
anti-marriage agenda on the citizens of California.
Maggie
Gallagher comments. Excerpt:
This is the trial that never should have
been, by a judge who has systematically telegraphed his sympathy for one side.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Ted Olson,
once a GOP advocate for judicial restraint. Yet this week, he will be pleading
with the judge to nullify the votes of 7 million Californians -- and, by
extension, the votes of millions of Americans in other states who have
exercised their right to vote for marriage as the union of husband and wife.
ABC
News reports. This case would be
laughable for its whacky political correctness if it wasn’t so sad and
pathetic.
Harry
Reid (D-NV) has filed on the Department of Defense funding bill which contains
the dangerous hate (thought) crimes expansion legislation. This means that the full Senate could vote
very soon on dangerous hate crimes legislation that threatens religious freedom
and the constitutional principle of “equal justice under law.” It’s also an insult to our brave troops
fighting overseas to sneak such controversial social engineering into troop
funding legislation.
Call
both
your senators today and urge them to vote against hate crimes!
Also,
sign FRC’s petition against hate
crimes.
HT:
FRC
While
the nation is consumed with health care “reform” and the war in Afghanistan,
Congress today snuck through special “protections” for sexual orientation in
the Department of Defense funding bill. Once
the Senate approves this bill, sexual orientation will be a protected status
under Federal hate (thought) crimes law.
The AP
reports.
Such
hate crimes legislation threatens religious freedom because it could be used to
prosecute motives, and it threatens the principle of “equal justice under law”
because it creates special protections based solely on sexual behavior.
See
how your representative
voted on hate crimes expansion (NOTE: a “yes” vote is against hate crimes
expansion and a “no” vote is for expansion).
Congressman
Mike Pence (R-IN) spoke out
against the shameful tactic of attaching such controversial social policy to an
essential Defense funding bill (which our troops in Afghanistan desperately
need). See the video here.
ABC News reports that
Congressman Barney Frank is pushing legislation that would force employers to accommodate
homosexuals and cross-dressers. Despite
supposed religious exemptions in the legislation, this bill would force many employers
to legitimize sexual behavior that they might find offensive or inappropriate.
As
if there was any doubt that the radical homosexual agenda is completely
incompatible with religious liberty, World Net
Daily’s report that a man is suing a Bible publisher because certain
passages of Scripture disturb his mental state (i.e. conscience) should dispel such
doubts.
The
Hill reports that several senators have introduced legislation that would
require businesses to accommodate and legitimize many forms of sexual deviancy
in the work place. Similar legislation in
several states has allowed male cross dressers to enter women’s restrooms. Although fighting workplace discrimination
always sounds good, ENDA would pose a huge threat to religious liberty and
public safety.
Richard
Cohen explains. Excerpt:
The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to
reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc.
-- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice.
It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or
speech. Johns is dead no matter what von Brunn believes. The penalty for murder
is severe, so it's not as if the crime is not being punished. The added
"late hit" of a hate crime is without any real consequence, except as
a precedent for the punishment of belief or speech. Slippery slopes are
supposedly all around us, I know, but this one is the real McCoy.
hat
tip: FRC
ADF reports. News like this shows why conscience
protections for doctors and other medical personnel are so necessary.
On
Thursday, July 16, the Senate voted on an amendment by Sen. Leahy which added
dangerous and unnecessary hate crimes legislation to a Department of Defense funding
bill. See how
both your senators voted on adding this hate crimes amendment to defense
spending legislation.
Thank
your senators if they voted “No,” and if they voted “Yes” respectfully share
your disappointment. You should also
keep this vote in mind the next time your senators face reelection.
UPDATE: Here's the vote tally. Follow the link to see the vote details.
Senate
Vote on the Leahy Amendment (S.A. 189) to add hate (thought) crimes legislation
to the Dept. of Defense funding bill
July 16, 2009
Full Results
|
|
|
Yeas
|
|
Nays
|
|
PRES
|
|
NV
|
|
Republican
|
|
5
|
|
28
|
|
—
|
|
7
|
|
Democratic
|
|
57
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
2
|
|
Independent
|
|
1
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
TOTALS
|
|
63
|
|
28
|
|
—
|
|
9
|
As the New
York Times reports, the Senate has passed into law dangerous hate crimes
legislation into a Defense Department funding bill. Excerpt:
The Senate has agreed to expand the
definition of hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual
orientation and gender identity as part of a Pentagon policy measure that is
becoming a magnet for tough social issues.
Ironically,
President Obama has threatened
to veto the bill because it sets aside funding for the new state-of-the-art
F-22 Raptor fighter jet.
FRC
explains why “hate crimes” laws are a threat to religious freedom.
The
Caucus blog of the New York Times reports.
Excerpt:
Senate Democrats said on Monday that they
would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks
based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.
To lift the chances of passage, Democrats
said the legislation, known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act,
would be attached as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill – a
must-pass measure.
Senator
Orin Hatch (R-UT) published a helpful analysis
and criticism of the hate crimes bill in The Spectrum. Excerpt:
The House passed a hate-crimes bill on
April 29, and a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both would
create a new federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting
to do so) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color,
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or
disability." A person unfamiliar with the hate-crimes debate reading these
provisions would likely respond by asking, "Wait, isn't that already a
crime?" At that point, they'd officially be one step ahead of the
proponents of these bills.
. . .
Both bills introduced this year would also
expand the definition of a hate crime to cover offenses motivated by a victim's
"gender identity."
At best, this legislation unnecessarily
intrudes on the efforts of state governments and creates crimes that are
impractical, if not impossible, to prosecute. At worst, it would be
unconstitutional.
Also, while both bills ostensibly prohibit
prosecution for any activities that are protected by the First Amendment, the
fact that they punish certain motives on the basis of political and social
viewpoints calls their constitutionality into question.
Read
Hatch’s full
analysis here.
OneNewsNow
reports. Excerpt:
"This is a clear affront and a
violation of the fundamental religious convictions of the owners of
pharmacies," he contends. "No pharmacist owner should ever have to
choose between saving a human life and keeping their shop and business."
Many consider the Ninth Circuit to be the
most liberal court in the U.S.
Brad
Dacus PJI
"This radical decision by the Ninth
Circuit gives the green light to liberal state legislators and regulators to be
able to clamp down on medical and other professionals with sincere religious
convictions against supporting abortions," Dacus adds.
If the decision is upheld, pharmacists and
owners with a conscience will have to choose between violating the law or going
out of business. Dacus hopes the case will be accepted by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
President Barack Obama opened the White
House to hundreds of gay activists Monday, promising them that by the time he
leaves office they would "have pretty good feelings" about his
administration.
During an event to celebrate the 40th
anniversary of what gay activists consider the launch of their political
movement – several nights of violent riots in and around a New York gay bar –
Obama rattled off several policies he plans to implement to please his
homosexual constituency.
"I want you to know that I expect and
hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises
my administration keeps," he said. "We've been in office six months
now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over … you guys will
have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."
Among those promises the president is
pursuing, he said: Overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passing a
law to mandate health-care and other benefits to homosexual domestic partners,
repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and even "rescinding the
discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status."
OneNewsNow also
reports.
Robert
Knight explains. Excerpt:
Among its many defects, the proposed
federal hate crimes bill virtually ensures that some defendants will face
double jeopardy, whatever the outcome of their cases. It all depends on the
whims of the folks occupying the Attorney General’s office, who may want to
score political points at a defendant’s expense.
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention
Act (S. 909) now before the Senate, establishes “thought crime,” violates equal
protection by making some victims more important than others, elevates “sexual
orientation” and “gender identity” to be equivalent to civil rights categories
like race, and greatly expands the federal role in criminal law.
In short, it’s a grab bag of ways to
violate genuine constitutional rights while addressing a non-issue. There is no
compelling evidence that bias-motivated crimes are not being handled properly
and perpetrators punished.
Keep
reading the full
article here.
The
President of the Family Research Council submitted
excellent testimony to a recent Senate committee held to discuss hate
crimes legislation. Excerpt:
Hate crime laws force the court to guess
the thoughts and beliefs which lie behind a crime, instead of looking at the
crime itself, in order to prosecute and convict someone of a hate crime.
Violent crimes are already punishable by law. "Hate crime" laws put
the perpetrator's thoughts and beliefs on trial. Hate crime laws are tantamount
to federally prosecuting "thought crimes." The Family Research
Council believes that all crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of
the law, and that every violent crime has some form of hate behind it. All
around the country, crimes are being prosecuted in the state justice systems.
American justice is being done. There is simply no need for a federal hate
crimes law.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., sent a
letter to key leaders in the religious community asking them to oppose the
bill.
"Please tell your congregation this
legislation is not about 'hate' (all violent crimes are hateful); it is about
taking away your freedom to speak and preach biblical truth," DeMint
wrote. "It will take away your right to say that some things are wrong. We
need millions of Americans to call and email their Senators, especially Democrat
Senators who are pushing this legislation."
OneNewsNow
reports. Excerpt:
"The crimes that took place [Tiller
murder and Holocaust Museum shootings] have absolutely nothing to do with the
content of the hate crimes bill, which only really is focusing on the special
treatment and special privileges of protection to be granted to people because
of their homosexuality or transsexual status," he contends.
Dacus adds that "the bill is not about
providing equal treatment -- it's providing unequal treatment," which he
believes is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution.
"The hate crimes bill accomplishes
nothing except to intimidate and silence legitimate, peaceful opposition to the
never-ending demands of the gay and transsexual activists," he concludes.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
The commission [U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights], not known for being on the side of social conservatives on policy
issues, has an ally in Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. He pointed out that hate-crimes
legislation fundamentally changes the idea of equal justice under law to
arbitrary justice based on the race, religion or sexual orientation of the
victim or the criminal.
"It really forces our courts and our
judges to begin to anticipate what people were thinking when they committed a
crime, rather than whether they committed the crime or not."
But he said the worst part of the
hate-crimes bill is it could restrict free speech, "because if a pastor
stands up and preaches that the Word of God says that homosexuality is wrong,
that pastor could be accused of hate speech and could even be accused or
charged with inducing someone to commit a crime against a homosexual."
Urge
your member
of Congress to oppose hate crimes!
Also, visit FightHateCrimes.com
to find out how you can help oppose this dangerous threat to religious freedom
and “equal justice under law.”
Click here
to view the Democrat press conference in support of hate crimes.
CitizenLink reports. The following excerpt quotes Ashley Horn of
Focus on the Family Action:
"As we've seen in other nations where
such laws are passed, they can have a chilling effect on the free speech of
those who would simply share from the Bible God's views on issues such as
homosexuality," she explained. "Hate-crimes laws are unnecessary in a
civil society like ours based on the rule of law.
"All crimes are hate crimes," she
added, "To give special status to certain groups of people allows courts
to reach beyond punishing people for the illegal acts they commit and judge
them for what they may or may not be thinking as they commit those acts."
Our
sources on the Hill assure us that Congress will try to push hate crimes
through before the August recess. Hate
(thought) crimes are a tool of legitimizing sexual deviancy and offering
special legal benefits based on sexual behavior. It also poses a serious threat to religious
liberty and “equal justice under law.”
Call
your
representative today and urge him or her to vote AGAINST dangerous and unnecessary
“hate crimes” legislation!
CNS News
reports. Some of our readers will
remember that many conservatives were concerned about the opening of the new
Capitol Visitor Center and whether our nation’s important religious heritage would
be ignored or distorted. The provisions
on this bill reflect assurances given to concerned conservatives so let’s hope
Congress lives up to their commitments to accurately represent our heritage.
The Southern
Voice reports. Apparently proponents
of expanding hate (thought) crimes protections to “actual or perceived” gender
identity and sexual orientation are concerned about conservative backlash to
dangerous hate crimes legislation.
According to the homosexual activist group HRC, hate crimes legislation
could be sneaked into other legislation as an amendment. This hate crimes bill would endanger
religious liberty and also violate the constitutional principle of “equal
justice under law,” and must be opposed by vigilant and active citizens.
CitizenLink reports. Despite a supposed “religious exemption” in
the newly passed “gay marriage” law in New Hampshire, religious liberties are
still gravely threatened. The truth is, state
sanctioned same-sex marriage is inherently dangerous to religious liberties. There is no “religious exemption” that could
change that fact.
And
as OneNewsNow
reports, NH legislators who voted for the same-sex marriage law could face
serious political repercussions in future elections.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
Two years ago, the United Kingdom passed a
law that forced adoption agencies to consider placing children with homosexual
couples. An exemption that protected religious groups has just expired, forcing
several faith-based adoption agencies to close rather than violate their
convictions.
Fox News reports
on this disturbing infringement on religious liberty. Normally, stories about the state clamping
down on “house churches” come from places like Communist China, not the United
States of America which is supposed to guarantee “free exercise of religion.” Chanel 10 San Diego also reports.
Matt
Barber explains. Excerpt:
This underscores the fact that all
hate-crimes laws, both state and federal, inarguably advance
"unequal" protection of the laws. This flies in the face of the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
New Hampshire
In
a surprising but welcome twist, it appears the New Hampshire same-sex marriage
bill might be stopped
in its tracks, at least for now.
Governor Lynch had promised to veto the original same-sex marriage bill
if some protections were not inserted for religious freedom. The NH Senate quickly adopted the changes,
but the NH House rejected the bill by a vote of 188-186. Maggie
Gallagher explains today’s events at NRO as does CitizenLink.
California
The
Supreme Court of California is expected
to soon announce its ruling on whether the recently passed ballot
initiative to ban same-sex marriage will be upheld. Not only is traditional marriage at stake,
but whether judges will be allowed to usurp their Constitutional power and
overrule the clear will of the people regarding the definition of marriage.
Washington, DC
Though
it is not a state (although some would like to treat it like one through
unconstitutional means), the District of Columbia has become an epicenter of
the growing rift over the definition of marriage. The DC City Council recently voted to
institute same-sex marriage in the District and its resolution will become law
if Congress fails to act. While many African
Americans in the District are outraged over the prospect of “gay marriage,”
a bi-partisan group of Congressmen proposed legislation to preserve the
traditional definition of marriage in the District at a press conference
today.
Maine
Voters
in Maine might get the chance
to vote on the traditional definition of marriage if enough signatures can
be gathered. The Maine Marriage Alliance
and others are hoping to collect 70,000 signatures or more so the recent law
enacting same-sex marriage in Maine can be overturned. Click
here for more information on the signature campaign.
The
Boston Herald reports on the grassroots effort to overturn the recently
passed same-sex marriage law by the Maine legislature.
World
Net Daily reports on this good news for the rights of religious leaders to
speak out on political issues. This is a
victory for religious freedom and free speech.
Please
contact both
your senators today and urge them to oppose the hate crimes bill (S. 909)!
Dangerous
hate (thought) crimes legislation will soon be
considered in the Senate Judiciary and then the full Senate. Expanding hate crimes to include “actual or perceived
gender identity or sexual orientation” would allow the government to prosecute
people for their thoughts opening up dangerous threat to religious freedom,
free speech, and “equal justice under law.”
And
if that wasn’t bad enough, it appears that pedophilia and many
other disturbing practices could be considered “sexual orientations” protected
by hate crimes law.
Our
friends at FRC have a website where you can get involved to fight hate crimes.
Contact
your senators today!
Reuters
reports. And CitizenLink reports
on how the bill establishes a special legal status for homosexuals. Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) voiced
his concerns that the bill “could have a chilling effect on the religious
expression and the religious freedom of millions of Americans.”
See
how your representative voted on this dangerous bill here.
Thanks
to all who contacted their representatives on this issue! Stay involved as this bill now heads to the
Senate.
David
Limbaugh explains. Excerpts:
Homosexual activists aren't easily
deterred. Unable to persuade even the people of California to change the
definition of marriage to legitimize their lifestyle, they're resorting to a
backdoor approach to accomplish the same thing: pushing federal hate crime
legislation while few are paying attention.
…
“…I think the main purpose of this bill is
to demonize and criminalize thought, especially the politically incorrect
belief that homosexual behavior is either abnormal or sinful. It is to make an
emphatic societal statement that this belief constitutes "hate" and
possibly to lay the groundwork for outlawing speech expressing this belief,
including from the pulpit.”
 Today the House Judiciary Committee considered dangerous hate crimes legislation which would add additional penalties to crimes based on the motivation of the criminal. This legislation poses a serious threat to religious freedom and equal rights.
AdvanceUSA staff attended or watched much of the hearings today. Democrats on the committee claimed the bill posed no threats to religious freedom because the bill only deals with violent crime, and compared the move to include sexual behavior as a protected status similar to the protections against crime motivated by race. Republicans pointed out the nebulous nature of many of the categories labeled in the legislation, and made the case that the bill would take action against “thought crimes” because it adds penalties based solely on the perpetrator’s perceived motivation.
Several amendments were proposed which would have attempted to clarify the definitions, speak the truth about the nature of the bill, or try to mitigate the danger to religious freedom and free speech. These substantive amendments were rejected.
The House Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on the hate crimes bill until 10:00am Thursday (April 22). If the bill passes committee, which is likely, concerned citizens will need to contact their representatives and urge them to oppose any expansion of hate crimes.
Matt
Barber explains why the hate crimes legislation now in the House Judiciary
Committee is so dangerous. Excerpt:
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Mark Kirk
(R-IL) have quietly re-introduced the federal thought crimes bill, H.R. 1913,
the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As has proved to
be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the
direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling “hate speech” laws. It
represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law
– morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual
lifestyle. The bill is expected to be marked up Wednesday before the full House
Judiciary Committee.
Concerned
Women for America has issued a
helpful press release on the dangerous hate crimes legislation being considered
by the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow.
It shows how the hate (thought) crimes bill would create a “caste system
of victims,” with some being more equal than others.
OneNewsNow
also reports on the danger this bill holds for religious freedom.
 The Christian Post reports that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has announced that the House Judiciary Committee will consider dangerous “hate crimes” legislation that would endanger religious freedom and would create special rights based solely on sexual behavior. Such hate crimes constitute punishing people for their thoughts and should rightly be called “thought crimes.”
CitizenLink reports on one specific example of a Christian being persecuted for holding traditional Christian views on homosexuality under the guise of hate prevention. A Christian in Britain lost his job for answering truthfully about his personal beliefs regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Excerpts:
A charity worker has been suspended after telling a colleague about his Christian beliefs on homosexuality, the London Times Online reported.
…
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the incident highlights what's beginning to show up in America.
"Where laws granting special rights to homosexuals bump into religious freedoms and freedom of speech, religion and speech lose," he said. "Christians are being bullied into silence simply for voicing disagreement with the homosexual agenda."
Call your representative today and urge him or her to oppose any expansion of hate crimes legislation, especially when based on homosexuality or “transgender orientation.”
Correction: This article originally indicated that Rep. Frank was a member of the House Judiciary Committee. This is incorrect. He is not a member of the committee, but is a co-sponsor of the legislation and was likely one of the first to announce that the bill would be considered in committee.
The
Union Leader reports. What happened
in Colorado is now happening in New Hampshire.
Under these laws, cross dressing men can use the same bathroom as your
wife and daughter. Many liberals would
like to see these kinds of “bathroom bills” enacted in other states and
nation-wide.
Find
out more about how the rights of doctors and other medical workers to refuse to
participate in unethical procedures (such as abortion) are being threatened,
and find out how you can help defend “a doctor’s right” at ADoctorsRight.com.
AdvanceUSA
has learned that liberal groups have begun pushing for so-called “hate crimes”
legislation which would create special privileges based on sexual behavior,
violate the constitutional principle of “equal justice under law,” and would
pose a subtle threat to religious freedom since “hate crime” and “hate speech”
laws have often been used to prosecute Christians for lovingly proclaiming
Biblical truth regarding sexuality. It is
possible that hate crimes legislation could be discussed in Congress soon after
the Easter recess.
Call your
representative and both
your senators and urge them to oppose any legislation that expands hate
crimes laws!
Alan
Sears explains why the conscience rights of medical personnel to refuse to
perform abortions or other unethical procedures must be protected. Excerpt:
“Always let your conscience be your guide,”
Jiminy Cricket used to sing to Pinocchio. Sounds like good advice, but
then…Jiminy had his ulterior motives. To his mind, he was the voice of that
puppet boy’s conscience – so he himself would be doing the guiding.
That’s pretty much seems to be the
philosophy of the Obama administration when it comes to the “rights of
conscience” of medical professionals. The team now pulling the strings at the
Department of Health and Human Services has decided that preserving religious
liberty – much less life in the womb – is a luxury the nation can’t afford.
And they expect health care providers to
take their moral cues from the government…not their own convictions.
The
Washington Post reports that President Obama is planning to overturn
important conscience protections which allow medical personnel to refuse to
perform operations or dispense drugs which they find unethical (such as
abortions and abortion drugs). The
New York Times also reports.
Excerpt:
The Obama administration moved Friday to
undo a last-minute Bush administration rule granting broad protections to
health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health
care that goes against their consciences.
Our
friend Tom McClusky at FRC has a helpful
blog post explaining what “pro-life riders” are and how we need to be
watchful over every piece of legislation (especially the massive omnibus
spending bill Congress is now considering) to ensure that each of these
important pro-life provisions are preserved.
Star
Park reports on this
troubling story. Excerpt:
A black pastor awaits sentencing, which
could amount to two years in prison and $4,000 in fines, for standing outside
an inner city abortion clinic holding a sign saying "Jesus Loves You &
Your Baby, Let Us Help You," and offering pro-life literature.
Alan
Sears of Exodus International explains.
Excerpt:
No sooner had he finished speaking of his
fellow Americans in his inaugural address as a people who “have chosen hope
over fear [and] unity of purpose over conflict and discord” than his staff
posted, on the White House Web site, a virtual declaration of war against those
who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in
homosexual behavior.
Daniel
Herbster reporting
 Wesley
J. Smith is an influential writer and commentator who has dedicated his career
to preserving human dignity and educating his fellow man on the principles of
bioethics and justice. He is a senior
fellow at the Discovery Institute and a
special consultant to the Center for Bioethics
and Culture. He has also written a
number of books, and he blogs at Secondhand
Smoke. Smith was kind enough to
share with AdvanceUSA’s readers about important bioethics issues facing our society
today and about his work.
DH: Why are bioethics issues so important?
WJS: Bioethics is a contraction for “biomedical
ethics.” It is a field that has profound influence over core areas of human
endeavor that help establish and define the morality of society, and indeed,
the meaning of human life itself. Should elderly people have their health care
rationed? Is assisted suicide a proper
medical service? Is it right to create
cloned human embryos for use in research or to bring to birth? Is it wrong to abort fetuses because they
test positive for Down syndrome? Should parents be able to genetically enhance
their children? Are there morally relevant differences between humans and
animals? What should happen if a nurse
refuses to participate in an abortion or a physician wants to cut off wanted
life-sustaining medical treatment because the patient has a poor “quality of
life?” These and other equally important
bioethical issues are much larger than the sum of their parts because they
establish philosophical norms that exert tremendous influence upon society
beyond the policies themselves. Indeed,
I can think of few fields more important than bioethics in determining the kind
of society we shall become in the 21st century.
DH: What is “human exceptionalism” and how does
it relate to issues of life and justice?
WJS: Human exceptionalism refers to the sheer
moral importance and unique value of being human. I believe strongly that adhering to human
exceptionalism is the predicate to defending universal human rights. Indeed,
whether we accept or reject human exceptionalism may be the most important
issue we face as a culture. For if we say that simply being human is not what gives value to life, we have to
ask a second question: What does? That
second question leads directly to a system wherein those with power decide
which of us has greater--and which lesser—value, and who decides those who
don’t make muster. Thus, many in bioethics support “personhood theory,” which
denies the objective moral value of being human and claims that what matters morally
is being a “person,” a status earned
by possessing minimal cognitive capacities. In this view, there is such a thing
as a human “non person,” such as fetuses, newborns, and people who have lost
these capacities, such as Terri Schiavo.
Worse, because the human non person is defined as having lesser value,
they lose the right to life and, can be used instrumentally such as in medical
experimentation or as sources of organs.
Indeed, there is much agitation in bioethics and within the organ
transplant community to redefine death to include a diagnosis of persistent
vegetative state—meaning that if this view prevails, severely compromised
people could essentially be killed for their organs. This isn’t happening—yet—but the only way to
make sure that such policies are never instituted is to adhere to human
exceptionalism.
The Star Tribune
reports. Only time will tell what
will happen to Bush’s important pro-life regulations after the Obama
administration “reviews” them.
 New White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
Daniel
Herbster reporting
Citizens for Community Values of
Indiana is one of the many great organizations in our nation fighting to
protect family values and to oppose pornography and sexually oriented
businesses. I had the opportunity to
interview Patrick Mangan, the Executive Director of CCV of IN, about his work
enabling people to take back their communities.
DH: Patrick, I’ve enjoyed getting to know you and your
organization better over the last few months, so it’s a pleasure to introduce
you to our readers here at AdvanceUSA Blog.
I’ve seen first-hand how your work affects the state of Indiana and
especially my home town of South Bend.
Tell our readers what kinds of issues Citizens for Community Values
works on?
PM: Well our mission is to protect men, women, and
children from the misinformation of sexual activists, and the harms of sexual
addictions, sexual predators, sexually oriented businesses, materials harmful
to minors, broadcast indecency, and the porn/sex industry in all of its forms,
by promoting the principles of the Judeo/Christian ethic which is the
foundation of our nation.
Our vision is to empower concerned citizens and
community leaders to significantly reduce sexual exploitation, promiscuity, and
abuse in Indiana and beyond by:
Newsmax
reports. Excerpt:
Six of 17 Virginia State Police Chaplains
have resigned over a request they not reference Jesus Christ at public events.
Instead, they've been instructed by the
Superintendent to offer non-denominational prayers, a decision made following a
recent ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Daniel
Herbster reporting
Faith-based
organizations across the country are doing great work providing social services
far more effectively and often more efficiently than the government. In order for faith-based groups to continue
this crucial work, their religious liberties must be protected. Requiring Catholic adoption agencies to place
children in the homes of homosexual couples or prohibiting religious
organizations from hiring people of like-minded faith in order to receive
funding are a few of the threats to religious liberty that faith based groups
face. One organization seeking to
advocate for religious liberty and the effectiveness of faith-based
organizations is the Center for Public
Justice. AdvanceUSA was able to
interview Stanley Carlson-Thies about his work at CFPJ and the effort to
protect crucial religious liberties.
DH: Stanley, I have great memories of attending
Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom meetings with you when I was in DC, and
I really appreciate the intellectual firepower you brought to the fight for
religious freedom and the work CFPJ does to stand up for faith-based
organizations. Tell our readers briefly
what the Center for Public Justice does?
What is its mission?
SC:
The Center for Public Justice (CPJ) is a Christian “think tank” that works to
educate Christians and others about public policy and citizenship, helps to
develop Christian leaders in public affairs, and acts in coalition with others
who are serious about religious freedom to influence public debates in favor of
a robust public role for faith and faith-based organizations. We speak and write about a wide range of
issues—national security and the Iraq war, different ways that various American
Christian groups articulate a Christian perspective in politics (see the
important book by James Skillen, Scattered Voice), a defense of historic
marriage, and so on. We have been
particularly active in the areas of school choice as a fundamental school
reform, welfare reform, and the faith-based initiative. A major interest is understanding and showing
how government and private organizations can best be related to each other. We offer a one-week intensive summer course
in the Christian faith and public affairs, called the Civitas program.
DH: Could you explain to our readers the concept
of “religious hiring rights” and why it is so important for faith-based
organizations especially?
SC:
Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act (and similar state and local laws), it has been
illegal for employers, except for very small ones, to discriminate in hiring on
the bases of race, color, national, origin, sex, or religion. People shouldn’t be excluded from jobs for
irrelevant reasons—that’s just bias. But
convictions and a certain standard of behavior are very important to most
faith-based organizations—to churches and other houses of worship, and also to
religious social-service and educational institutions. Imagine trying to maintain an evangelical
drug treatment ministry if you couldn’t insist that new employees be
Christians! Most people accept the need
for this kind of religious hiring freedom.
But many think this freedom ought to be given up if the organization
agrees to help the government serve the needy by accepting a government grant
to provide some service. How can it be
right that the government would support religious job discrimination, they
say. But, of course, it is not illegal
discrimination for religious organizations to hire on the basis of religion
(but they can’t exclude people for reasons of race, etc.). And it is just as
important to a faith-based organization to be able to have a staff committed to
its beliefs and standards when it is working with government as when it is
using only private money.
DH: What are some of the chief threats to
religious hiring rights in our nation today?
Erik
Stanley explains the ADF campaign to challenge
IRS code regarding permissible church political speech and tax-exempt status. Excerpt:
The truth is, the
Pulpit Initiative is not about serving any candidate or political party or
turning a church into a political action committee. The initiative is about
restoring the constitutional right of pastors to speak freely from the pulpit
without any fear of punishment by the government for doing what churches do:
speak on any number of cultural and societal issues from a biblical
perspective—and that includes commenting on the positions of electoral
candidates, if they so choose.
 The Washington
Post reports that some pastors are planning to violate IRS regulations
which prevent pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit. The penalty for violation is the loss of a
church’s tax-exempt status. The Alliance
Defense Fund is encouraging pastors to take this step and is willing to take
the U.S. Government to court in order to overturn the IRS policies on First
Amendment grounds.
This
is a fascinating case for students of constitutional interpretation, and it
will be interesting to see its result.
Many
Americans may be surprised to know that current tax-exempt restrictions on church
political activity are only as old as the 1960s. For years pastors and churches had much more
latitude to speak on political issues. For
much of our history pastors would even endorse or criticize candidates from the
pulpit.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
Last year, the U.S. House of
Representatives took up a bill that would have enshrined homosexuality and
"transgenderism" in federal law. The legislation passed only after
language to include "gender identity" was taken out. The Senate has
not taken up the measure, but it is expected to resurface in Congress next
year.
A
New York court has conspired with the governor of New York in bypassing the
legislative branch by declaring
that “gay” marriages must be recognized despite the fact that the elected representatives
on New Yorkers have declared that marriage is only a union of one man and one
woman.
Daniel Herbster reporting
Did you know that legislation could be
passed in your state or on the national level that would allow cross dressers
or even sexual offenders to use women’s restrooms? The state of Colorado recently passed such a
law in the misguided desire to prevent “discrimination” against
“transgendered” individuals. AdvanceUSA interviewed
Jim Pfaff (who now works for Americans for
Prosperity) back in April about his work at the Colorado Family
Institute. We’ve decided to touch base with him again about Colorado’s
Senate Bill 200 and how it could be a grim harbinger of things to come
nation-wide.
DH: Senate Bill 200, recently signed by Colorado Gov. Bill
Ritter, claims to protect against “discrimination.” Do you think that is
true?
JP: It really doesn't protect
anyone from discrimination. The legislation was intended to protect
homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals from so-called
discrimination. But really no such discrimination existed. The proponents of
the bill claimed that there were a multitude of homosexuals being
systematically discriminated against, but we looked at the numbers and found
out that at best approximately 175 cases of such discrimination were ever brought
forward. And of those, less than 3 to 4% had any validity to them. On the other
hand, we maintain that this bill actually will have the effect of imposing by
government Fiat a new form of discrimination against those of sincere religious
belief. And as I said in our previous interview, one example we have is a
Christian couple in Albuquerque New Mexico who owned a photography company and
was hauled into a civil rights court because they refused to take pictures of a
lesbian same-sex commitment ceremony based on their sincerely held religious
belief. We believe many more cases like this will begin to emerge here in
Colorado, and in our opinion this bill therefore does nothing to protect anyone
from discrimination and, to the contrary, will likely cause new forms of
discrimination.
DH: What are some of the scary implications of this
bill? What could happen as a result of its passage?
JP: Well, the first and the
most scary application of this bill is the fact that based on the wording of
this law, any man, for example, can of legal right to enter a woman's restroom
by merely stating that he perceives himself to be a woman. That's the first and
most concerning aspect of this new law. But secondly, as I stated before, this
bill could be used to discriminate against people of sincere religious belief
became merely refuse to appropriately accommodate homosexuals, bisexuals and
transgendered individuals based on a sincerely held religious belief.
DH: Is there a push to enact this kind of legislation on the
national level or in other states?
Saturday
night’s presidential forum at Rick Warren’s church provided a clear distinction
between the major candidates on various issues, especially on social
conservative issues such as abortion, judges, and the rights of faith-based
organizations. To read a transcript of
the event click here. To view the entire broadcast via online video
click
here.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
In a unanimous ruling today, California's
high court said the rights of gays and lesbians trump the religious beliefs of
doctors.
The
New York Times reports. Excerpt:
The Bush administration wants to require
all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will
not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and …
certain types of birth control.
 Some are pushing to make the state of Massachusetts the “Las Vegas of gay marriage.” The Massachusetts legislature will soon vote on whether to keep the 1913 law which forbids Massachusetts from recognizing the marriages of out-of-state couples that are not recognized in the couple’s home state. The enforcement of this long-forgotten law by former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney prevented the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling instituting same-sex marriage in Massachusetts from spreading to other states.
Liberal activists will stop at nothing to establish so-called “gay marriage” in every state in the country. This is why it is so important to pass an amendment to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman only. Call your representative and both your senators today and urge them to cosponsor and vote “Yes” on the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.
McClatchy
News reports on the recent
Congressional hearings on “transgender employment discrimination.” So-called anti-discrimination legislation
would be a dangerous restriction on religious liberty. Excerpt:
Opposing the legislation, Glen Lavy, an
attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said it would be a mistake to define
gender identity or gender expression as a protected class. He said that
objections to "the concept of transgender" are based on religious
beliefs and that forcing the idea as a valid concept "is like forcing an
Orthodox Jew to eat pork." And he said that employers would have
difficulty enforcing dress codes and assuring privacy.
"With gender identity being totally
subjective, who could challenge any male who says he wants to use a woman's
restroom?" Lavy asked.
Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the
top-ranking Republican on the committee, questioned whether Congress needs to
get involved at all.
"We have numerous federal and state
laws and employer policies already on the books that help prevent
discriminatory practices," he said. "Do we need yet another federal
law?"
The
House Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee is now holding
hearings entitled “An Examination of Discrimination Against Trangender
Americans in the Workplace.” View the live
video here.
One
of the goals of these hearings is to advance legislation which would require
businesses and religious organizations to hire cross dressers and sex-change
operation recipients despite any religious or moral convictions which would be
violated.
As
this
gay publication reports, Congress will hold hearings on dangerous
legislation such as ENDA which would endanger religious liberty at the expense
of a misguided notion of “gay rights.”
As this NPR article demonstrates, when “gay
rights” and religious liberty conflict, religious liberty usually loses. This is an important fact to emphasize as gay
couples are now obtaining marriage licenses in California.
A few examples cited by NPR:
A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered
to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been
sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned
its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with
same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in
California.
A psychologist in Mississippi who refused
to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a
doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose
his pending case before the California Supreme Court.
And then there's the case of a wedding
photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.
CitizenLink reports. If the dangerous “hate (thought) crimes” and
ENDA legislation now in Congress gets passed into law, we could see similar
persecution in the United States.
Brian Fitzpatrick explains how the modern push for “gay rights” endangers religious liberty. He catalogues the outrageous international cases of religious discrimination and demonstrates how legislation currently being pushed in Congress will bring such restrictions to the United States.
Our friends at FRC have also been sounding the alarm. If you don’t want churches, private schools, and businesses to be forced to hire homosexuals or “transgendered” people and you don’t want Christians to be persecuted for their religious convictions contact Congress today. Call both your senators and your representative and urge them to vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or any legislation giving “domestic partnership” benefits to homosexual couples.
It
appears the Colorado Legislature is trying to keep up with California for
nuttiness. As the Colorado Springs
Gazette reports, Gov. Ritter signed a bill into law which would allow
the “transgendered” to use whichever restroom they prefer and no private
business is allowed to prohibit this activity, all in the name of so-called “non-discrimination”
and “equality.” Excerpt:
One aspect of the law enables transgenders
- those who were born one gender but identify with the other - to use public
restrooms in which they feel most comfortable.
…
Focus founder James Dobson said Thursday:
"Who would believe that the Colorado
state Legislature and its governor would have made it legal for men to enter
and use women's restrooms and locker room facilities without notice or
explanation?
"Henceforth, every woman and little
girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a
homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their
presence." Don’t
think this kind of legislation won’t be coming to a state near you in the near
future. Liberal activist are pushing for
similar legislation on the federal level such as ENDA and other items.
Keep
checking AdvanceUSA Blog for the latest news on these important issues.
CitizenLink
reports on the outrageous
“non-discrimination” legislation in Colorado which would make “open to men,
women, bisexuals, transsexuals and ‘transgendered’ individuals.” If ENDA
or similar legislation is passed in Congress, the entire country could be
subjected to these kinds of policies.
As
AdvanceUSA reported
last June, when Jim Holsinger was nominated by President Bush to be surgeon
general, radical homosexual interest groups smeared his reputation and
convinced the U.S. Senate to stall his nomination because of his religious
convictions concerning homosexuality and for sound medical reports he issued on
the health dangers of homosexual activity.
Holsinger is a Methodist and has taken public stands in defense of
Biblical teaching on homosexuality while serving his church in leadership
positions.
It
appears Jim Holsinger has been vindicated by the United Methodist Church as
that body recently upheld the traditional definition of marriage and biblical
teaching on sexual morality at its recent global conference. The
Institute on Religions and Democracy explains.
It
has been a full year since George W. Bush first nominated Holsinger, and his
nomination is still stalled in the U.S. Senate.
It is a shame that a man’s religious convictions can be used to smear
his reputation and prohibit him from serving his country.
A so-called “anti-discrimination” bill in the Colorado legislature is very similar to the proposed ENDA legislation in the U.S. Congress both of which would award special privileges to homosexuals and transgenders based on their “actual or perceived” sexual behavior. Concerned citizens must be vigilant to oppose this kind of dangerous legislation. The Alliance Defense Fund gave testimony against the bill which is also very relevant to the federal version. Excerpt:
“The government shouldn’t cater to the agenda of political activist groups and then use the strong arm of the law to force it on the public,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “This law would not protect rights but would grant special privileges based strictly on someone’s sexual behavior. Further, those privileges would have a significant impact on the constitutional rights of Coloradoans who have a moral objection to homosexual behavior.”
CitizenLink warns us
of this serious and dangerous issue.
Hate crimes legislation is misguided and a very real threat to religious
freedom and “equal justice under law.”
 Homosexual activists gathered in our nation’s capital from a few days ago until Tax Day (today) lobbying for what they call “family values.” Their agenda includes supposed anti-discrimination legislation like ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and instituting laws which provide what substantively amount to marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
Concerned citizens must be careful to clearly state that we do not hate homosexuals or wish to persecute them, but that we strongly object to creating special rights and privileges based on sexual behavior and we believe that organizations and companies should have the right to deem certain behavior unacceptable for their employees.
If these legislative goals proceed they will likely include some sort of “religious exemptions” which only protect churches and other explicitly religious organizations, but which do not cover individual employers such as private companies and certain non-profits. For example, while a Catholic church might be exempted from being forced to hire or accommodate homosexuals or same-sex couples, a Catholic businessman or leader of a faith-based charity would not be protected. The religious freedoms of individuals should be protected, not just the religious freedom of large organizations.
The bottom line is that sexual behavior should not be given preferential treatment under law under the guise of anti-discrimination. Also, the crucial institution of marriage should not be undermined by offering special marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
ACTION: We do not yet know when Congress will consider such legislation, but we encourage you to contact your representative and both your senators to urge them to oppose ENDA and other attempts to give substantive marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
William
J. Federer provides some important historical
context to the oft-quoted but seldom understood phrase “separation of
church and state.”
The Washington Times reported in
February on the case of Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer in New Mexico,
who refused
to take pictures of a lesbian civil ceremony. Elaine is being prosecuted under
anti-discrimination laws and the Alliance
Defense Fund is now coming to her assistance. This case is a chilling reminder of why
anti-discrimination laws based on “sexual orientation or gender identity”
should be opposed, especially on the federal level (i.e. ENDA). Here’s an excerpt from the Times:
An evangelical Christian photographer was
brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after she declined for
religious reasons to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.
When Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, N.M.,
declined in September 2006 an e-mail request from a lesbian couple to
photograph their ceremony, one of the lesbians responded by lodging a human
rights complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, the state agency
charged with enforcing state anti-discrimination laws and sending cases to the
commission to be adjudicated.
LifeSiteNews
also reported
on this case.
CitizenLink reports
on this troubling development.
AdvanceUSA has also been informed of likely moves to undermine marriage
by offering special rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and will be watching
federal legislation that relates to this issue closely.
The Pew Forum has provided this helpful resource for churches to know what political activities are permitted under IRS non-profit restrictions.
You can find this and other helpful resources at AdvanceUSA’s Church Involvement Page. Pastors and churches are often too intimidated speak out on important political issues for fear of losing tax-exempt status. Christians have a responsibility to act as “salt and light” in our society and culture, and must be armed with accurate information about what the law allows.
 One would expect that Catholic organizations should be able to hire only Catholics or that religious ministries (a church soup kitchen for example) should be able to fire or refuse to hire people who violate that religion’s moral teachings on sexuality. These common sense assumptions could be in danger if “charitable choice” is not protected in the upcoming SAMSHA vote in the Senate.
Charitable choice is what allows religious charities to accept federal funding while taking religious/moral beliefs into consideration when hiring employees. Without these protections religious charities would be forced to compromise their most cherished beliefs in order to continue to minister effectively. Allowing Catholic charities to only hire Catholics or to refuse to hire someone who is an openly practicing homosexual are examples of charitable choice protection.
The Center blog reports on the latest efforts to restrict this important religious liberty in the statutory provisions governing the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Senators should be urged to support charitable choice in SAMHSA.
Excerpt from Washington Post story:
Under the Civil Rights Act, religious groups are allowed to only hire people of their particular faith. The battle erupts over what should happen when these groups accept federal dollars.
Supporters of charitable choice said before it was in place many faith-based groups were treated poorly by government agencies and shied away from applying for federal money, fearing they would have to change their religious nature. Many of these groups are highly effective in helping the addicted and mentally ill, supporters said, and without charitable choice, many of them won't apply for federal aid, perhaps dropping out.
Congressman
Randy Forbes (R-VA) has introduced a bill (H. RES. 888) which would make the
first week in May “America’s Religious History Week.” Much of the text of the bill would make a
great history lesson in America’s rich religious history. Read the full text
here. Excerpts:
Whereas political
scientists have documented that the most frequently-cited source in the
political period known as The Founding Era was the Bible;
Whereas the first
act of America’s first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with
prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of four chapters of the Bible;
Whereas in 1777,
Congress, facing a national shortage of “Bibles for our schools, and families,
and for the public worship of God in our churches,” announced that they
“desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement”
and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported “into the
different ports of the States of the Union”;
Whereas in 1782,
Congress pursued a plan to print a Bible that would be “a neat edition of the
Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and therefore approved the production
of the first English-language Bible printed in America that contained the
congressional endorsement that “the United States in Congress assembled . . .
recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States”;
Whereas, in 1864,
by law Congress added “In God We Trust” to American coinage;
To
read these quotes and many more click here. Or for a version that includes the historical documentation check the PDF
version at Rep. Randy Forbes’ website.
The
Wall Street Journal mentions the dangerous
Employment Non-Discrimination Act in an article on several anti-business
bills that could progress in the current Congress. Another concern with ENDA, besides
restrictive government regulation of business, is the threat that
non-discrimination laws based on “actual or perceived” sexual preferences could
pose to religious freedom.
Excerpt:
…the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,
passed the House of Representatives last fall. It would prohibit discrimination
on the basis of "sexual orientation." In short, private-sector
employers who have religious or other objections to homosexuality would be told
their moral views lack legitimacy.
The Bush administration has announced its
opposition, noting that the bill raises constitutional problems and "turns
on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance,
and enforcement extremely difficult" and is "virtually certain to
encourage burdensome litigation." Sen. John McCain is opposed to such
legislation; Sens. Obama and Clinton are supporters. Sen. Edward Kennedy is
expected to introduce the bill later this year in the Senate. For more information on ENDA click here.
“Charitable
choice” is what allows religious charities to maintain their non-profit,
tax-exempt status while being able to take religious or moral beliefs into
consideration when hiring employees.
Without these protections religious charities would be forced to
compromise their most cherished beliefs in order to continue to minister
effectively. For example, charitable
choice is what allows a Catholic charity to only hire Catholics while refusing
to hire someone who is an openly practicing homosexual.
The
Center blog reports on the latest efforts
to restrict this important religious liberty in the statutory provisions
governing the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA).
 Last night President Bush delivered his final State of the Union address to a combined gathering of both houses of Congress. His speech touched on a number of important pro-life, pro-family, and religious liberty issues.
The president threw down the gauntlet on stem cell research, telling Congress that we must continue to fund ethical research because human life must be respected. He highlighted the recent breakthrough in obtaining pluripotent stem cells from skin cells as proof that unethical research was unnecessary. The President championed the role of faith-based organizations in providing services and changing lives far more effectively than government alone can do. He called on Congress to allow more flexibility and local control for schools under the No Child Left Behind Act. He also encouraged Congress to maintain “charitable choice” provisions in federal law which protect the religious hiring rights of faith-based organizations (ex: allowing a Catholic charity to hire only Catholics who share that organization’s mission and standards).
The White House website has provided the text of the president’s address along with video links that allow you to watch the address. To read a helpful fact sheet provided by the administration about the agenda outlined in the president’s speech click here. To read helpful summaries of the various topics see below:
In honor
of the 222nd anniversary of the passage of Thomas Jefferson’s
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, President Bush has declared tomorrow (January
16) “Religious Freedom Day.” To read the official proclamation click
here.
For more
information on religious liberty check out AdvanceUSA’s pro-religious freedom page.
Thomas
Jefferson Memorial graphic source: ThisNation
KCRG reports.
A federal appeals court says it won't reconsider a ruling that the state cannot fund a Christian prison ministry program in Newton.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says the ruling from its three-judge panel was correct because state funding of the program violates the Constitution's separation of church and state.
For more information on the IFI case check the AdvanceUSA pro-religious freedom page (scroll to the bottom of the page).
Our
friends on the Hill informed us yesterday that the House and Senate conferees
working on the Department of Defense authorization bill have removed the
dangerous and unrelated hate (thought) crimes extension language. The
Associated Press reports
here. As The
Hill reports (subscription required):
House and Senate votes on the 2008 defense authorization
bill could be held as early as next week after conferees agreed Thursday to
strip from the bill a controversial provision extending hate-crimes protections
to gays.
This is an important victory for religious freedom, and
AdvanceUSA thanks all those who contacted their elected officials and voiced their
views.
 The eighth circuit court delivered a mixed ruling yesterday which allows IFI (the InnerChange Freedom Initiative) to continue its ministry in Iowa prisons (without public funds) and does not require the ministry to pay exorbitant fines but said the original version of the program was unconstitutional. As the New York Times reports this should be a concern for advocates of faith-based initiatives and religious freedom.
InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) is a faith-based prison ministry, affiliated with Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries, that has had phenomenal success in changing lives resulting in the vast majority of its participants not returning to prison. Inmates join the program on a voluntary basis and are free to leave the program at any time. On June 2, 2006 a federal judge in Iowa ruled that the program was unconstitutional and that the state had to terminate the program as well as require IFI pay back $1.5 million.
Visit IFI's Ruling website to find the latest news and legal status of the case and find out more about IFI's faith-based prisoner re-entry program.
For more information on similar religious liberty issues check the AdvanceUSA religious freedom page.
This
article from Human Events explains the latest developments
regarding dangerous hate crimes legislation and its current status.
Excerpt:
The Massachusetts Democrat [Sen. Kennedy] smeared the
military to win votes for his “hate crimes” amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Bill for 2008. The ploy, unfortunately, worked. Sixty
senators supported his “hate crimes” amendment to the Defense Authorization
Bill, which is now in conference committee.
AdvanceUSA has learned that ENDA, after having
passing the House of Representatives recently, will likely be put on the Senate
“calendar” within a week. This means that it could be considered at any
time. However, there are about a hundred total bills on the Senate
calendar, so it is not certain that the Senate vote on ENDA is imminent.
It could even be pushed back to next year.
Be
assured AdvanceUSA will keep a watchful eye on this dangerous
legislation. For more information on ENDA click here
or here.
 Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. voices his concerns with a
number of issues he sees as a threat to religious freedom. Doubtless the
ENDA bill and hate crimes legislation are clear and present dangers to free
religious expression, and the movement to
resurrect the discredited “fairness doctrine” is a blatant affront to free
speech. Read Jackson’s
full
column here.
For more
information on religious freedom click here or here.
In a
victory for religious liberty and freedom of conscience, the AP
reports:
A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that
pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills, a victory for
druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by
the government.
The
“morning after pill” (Plan B) can act as an abortifacients (abortion-causing
drug) and has serious unaddressed health concerns.
Yesterday the House passed ENDA by a vote of 235 - 184. Check the vote box below or on the Congress Vote Watch page to see how your representative voted on this dangerous legislation. An amendment proposed by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) to broaden the religious exemption for churches and other religious institutions passed, but the bill still ignores the threats to the religious freedom of regular employers. Furthermore, the underlying bill sets a dangerous precedent by elevating sexual behavior as a civil rights issue akin to race, religion, or gender. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) had an excellent article Tuesday in Human Events which explains the serious religious freedom and litigation concerns with ENDA. Fortunately, the President has vowed to veto the legislation.
For more information on this threat to religious freedom which is also an open door to wasteful and malicious litigation, check the AdvanceUSA home page or the ENDA category at AdvanceUSA Blog.
House Vote on H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (Passed)
November 7, 2007
Full Results | News Story
|
|
|
Yeas |
|
Nays |
|
PRES |
|
NV |
|
Republican |
|
35 |
|
159 |
|
— |
|
6 |
|
Democratic |
|
200 |
|
25 |
|
— |
|
8 |
|
Independent |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
TOTALS |
|
235 |
|
184 |
|
— |
|
14 |
Christians
in Iraq
are often victims of intense religious persecution in their homeland.
Many chose to flee to nearby countries to escape with their lives.
Unfortunately, as this Newsmax article reveals, Christian
refugees are often discriminated against by embassy and UN refugee officials.
Pray Congress and the Bush administration become aware of the needs of these
persecuted believers and take steps to protect them. Also, pray that the
Lord would protect the believers in Iraq and give them grace and peace.
H.R. 3685, the dangerous Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), will likely be voted on today in the House of
Representatives. While liberals may attempt to whitewash it with religious
freedom and marriage protections ENDA is still a dangerous step toward special
federal protections based on sexual behavior. ENDA is part of the overarching
homosexual strategy to undermine traditional marriage and legitimize
deviant sexual behavior. For more information on ENDA click here
or here.
House
Minority Leader Roy Blunt (R-MO) has a very helpful article today in Human
Events which explains the serious religious
freedom and litigation concerns with ENDA which would be well worth your
time to consider. Excerpt:
One thing, however, is certain: Passage of this bill would
effectively create a brand new market for litigation, and set up the opportunity
for billions of dollars for trial lawyers. Another bill, another
Democratic payback to their special interests, more burdens on American small
businesses, more attempts to limit religious speech -- well, just another day
under this Democratic Congress.
AdvanceUSA
will post the vote results of the House vote on ENDA as soon as they become
available. Be sure to see how your
representative voted on this dangerous bill.
The
Washington Blade (homosexual news publication) explains the
strategy of the “gay rights” agenda while offering critique to help
proponents obtain the ultimate goal of same-sex marriage. The article suggests a “incremental” approach
in which marriage and civil unions are not discussed until the public is
“ready.”
A
suggested plan of attack includes these stages of building in this order:
- Hate Crimes
- ENDA
- Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell”
- Permanent Partners
Immigration Act
- Civil Unions
- Repeal Defense of Marriage
Act and Overturn State Marriage Amendments
Click here
to read the full explanation.
Star
Parker has an excellent column explaining the
problems with the dangerous ENDA legislation and exposes the hypocrisy of
many radical homosexual organizations.
Excerpt:
We've got legislation moving
through Congress, pushed by gay activists, that would make it illegal for an
employer to not hire, or to fire, someone because of their sexual orientation.
But the head of the nation's largest gay-activist organization asks Obama to
fire a man because he is a Christian and an advocate of traditional values?
For more
information on ENDA click here
or here.
Lawyer
and author Wendy Kaminer has a very helpful piece in the Wall Street Journal exposing
the dangers and misconceptions relating to hate crimes legislation now in
Congress. She also makes the case that
civil libertarians wary of government intrusion into personal rights should
support their social conservative cohorts in opposing hate crimes.
She
addresses the charge that the current hate crimes bill does not deal with
speech but only violent crime. She
explains this view but then concludes:
Still, distinguishing hateful bias crimes from other
hateful acts of violence punishes ideas and expression, no matter how
scrupulously the legislation is crafted. When someone convicted of assaulting
one woman is subject to an enhanced prison sentence or a more vigorous
prosecution because his assault was motivated by a hateful belief in the
inherent inferiority of all women, then he is being punished for his thoughts
as well as his conduct.
Hate
crimes should really be called “thought crimes” or “bias crimes” as noted here:
…without directly criminalizing speech, the proposed
Matthew Shepard Act (like other hate-crime laws) does effectively and
intentionally criminalize bias, when bias is shown to bear a direct
relationship to a violent crime.
The hate
crimes bill could also threaten the important constitutional principle
prohibiting “double jeopardy;” being prosecuted twice for the same crime:
But freedom of thought is not the only liberty at stake in
this debate. The Matthew Shepard Act would also subject defendants to double
jeopardy for a single offense. The bill expressly states that defendants
prosecuted in state court may be prosecuted for the same crime in federal
court, if federal officials determine that "the verdict or sentence
obtained pursuant to state charges left demonstrably unvindicated the federal
interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence."
She
concludes her piece noting that the killers of Matthew Shephard were tried and
convicted to the full extent of the law.
Matthew Shepard's killers were convicted of homicide and
kidnapping by the state of Wyoming
and are serving consecutive life sentences. His torture and murder remain awful
to contemplate, but civil libertarians ought not be squeamish about questioning
the consequences of the law that would bear his name.
How would
a hate crimes law have punished them any more?
For more
on hate crimes click
here or here.
Those who
would like to remove all reference to God from public life have been very busy
lately as these three stories illustrate.
 
- Flag folding at National
Cemeteries: Apparently the traditional flag-folding ceremony entitled to
veterans is being forbidden because of its reference to God. Full story from the Associated
Press and One
News Now. Excerpts:
Complaints about religious content
have led to a ban on flag-folding recitations by Veterans Administration
employees and volunteers at all 125 national cemeteries.
Rabbi Yitzhak Miller of Temple Beth
El said he understands the ban. "It is a perfect example of government
choosing to ignore religion in order to avoid offending some religions,"
Miller said. "To me, ignoring religion in general is just as problematic
as endorsing any one religion."
- Certificates for Capitol Flags: As reported
earlier the Architect of the Capitol denied a Boy Scout from
referencing God on the certificate of a flag flown in honor of his
grandfather over the Capitol. The
acting Architect of the Capitol has reversed the decision and will allow
Congressmen to chose what wording is permitted on each certificate, but
some conservative activists are encouraging the White House to nominate a
new Architect of the Capitol to serve a ten-year term. This way the policy could not be
overturned by the next administration regardless of party affiliation.
The Daily
Mail reports on this outrageous case. This is an example of what can result
from laws dictating “tolerance” and “non-discrimination” towards
homosexuals. Congress would do well to consider cases like this when they
vote next week on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685).
More on
ENDA here and here.
Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., (Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and author) has written an article criticizing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) because it endangers families and is an insult to the real civil rights movement. First he draws a distinction between this attempt to mandate privileges based on sexual preference and the civil rights movement seeking to prevent racial discrimination. Then he gives five reasons to oppose ENDA. Click here to read the entire article or see below to read Jackson’s five reasons to oppose ENDA.
1. ENDA would overturn the historical basis of protected class status by adding “actual or perceived sexual orientation.” While every other federally-protected class embodies three standards: an obvious, immutable characteristic; a history of discrimination evidenced by economic disenfranchisement; and political powerlessness, “sexual orientation” falls under none of these criteria. It is an insult to African Americans to grant special protections for “sexual orientation.”
2. ENDA expands civil rights protections on the vague basis of perception. An employee or potential employee could sue an employer for his or her perception of their sexual orientation. Yet unlike the currently-protected classes of race, age, and gender in employment, sexual orientation is not scientifically verifiable. It is an offense to African Americans to equate “sexual orientation” with skin color.
3. ENDA infringes on the religious liberties of our parishioners. As shepherds of our flock, we cannot stand by while our parishioners are forced to ignore their convictions when they leave church on Sunday. ENDA requires people of faith to lay down their religious freedom at the office door. This opposes our beliefs and it is not practical – faith cannot be segmented into only one part our lives.
4. ENDA puts the integrity of our ministries in jeopardy. Many African-American churches run outreach ministries separate from the church to care for our communities. My local church runs a daycare which cares for over 200 children daily and the potential to serve another 100+ children in extended care for those who are in school. ENDA provides unclear protection for schools, while leaving ministries such as childcare, after school programs, and food and clothing banks vulnerable to ENDA mandates.
5. ENDA is a direct attack on our freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment grants all Americans the freedom to practice their faith. ENDA stands in direct opposition to this liberty and must be rejected as a result.
The
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685) was favorably reported out of the
House Education & Labor committee by a vote of 27 – 21. Four
amendments were offered to the legislation in order to highlight the severe
danger it poses to religious liberty and to illustrate the litigation nightmare
that would ensue if enacted into law.
ENDA will
be voted on soon (most likely early next week) so keep calling your
representative and urging him or her to vote “No” on ENDA (H.R. 3685)!
Also, an amendment will most likely be offered on the House floor which would
add “transgender” people (cross dressers, sex-change recipients, etc.) to the
special privileges and regulations established by this law.
Continue
reading for more information on the amendments offered and some of the
statements made during committee markup today.
 Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) has introduced the Pledge Protection Act (H.R. 699) which denies federal courts the jurisdiction to hear cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance. Radical secularists like Michael Newdow and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have shown a clear intent to do away with any reference to God in the pledge of allegiance. This legislation proactively prevents activist federal courts from declaring the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Under Article I Section 8 and Article III Sections 1 and 2, Congress has the authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts. Please call your representative today and urge him or her to support The Pledge Protection Act of 2007 by signing on as a cosponsor and by eventually voting “Yes” on H.R. 699.
Marvin Olasky gives a helpful
explanation of the recent
case of federal prisons removing religious texts from prison libraries in
his article at Townhall. The decision is good news for religious freedom in
America. After the Bureau of Prisons
reexamines their policy hopefully they will institute a sensible policy that
merely prohibits texts that incite illegal activity (such as violence and
terrorism) and does not even bring religion per se into the
picture.
Chuck
Colson paints an alarming
but accurate picture of what could happen in America if the dangerous ENDA bill
becomes law in his column at Townhall.
Excerpt:
Imagine you own a small business—let’s say a donut
shop—and you have an employee who is late for work everyday and is rude to
customers. When you fire him, he claims it is really because he is gay—and
sues.
Or imagine you run a daycare center in your church
basement. One day a homosexual applies for a job. When you turn him down, he
says you broke the law.
Today, both of these stories are simply scenarios. But by
the end of the week, they could be reality.
For more information on ENDA check the material on the
AdvanceUSA home page
or the other blog posts in the “ENDA” category.
In a letter entitled “Constitutional
Protections for Pastors: Your Freedom to Speak Biblical Truth on the Moral
Issues of the Day” several organizations concerned with religious freedom
are offering legal advice to pastors and congregations regarding permissible
issue-oriented political activity.
Pastors, churches, and Christians should understand their rights and
responsibilities to be politically active and involved on the issues facing our
nation.
Excerpt
from letter:
As the 2008 elections approach,
various groups have launched intimidation tactics in an effort to silence
churches and pastors about the great social and moral issues of our time. Churches and pastors need clear guidelines
for permissible political activities to answer to these attacks.
CWA has
also prepared a helpful resource entitled “Political Guidelines for
Churches and Pastors.”
For more
information on church involvement in political issues check the AdvanceUSA church involvement page.
UPDATE: Baptist
Press has published this helpful article explaining “what
can churches do during elections.”
Excerpt from Online Union-Tribune article:
Two San Diego court employees are suing the Superior Court because they say they have been prohibited from holding a lunch hour Bible study in the courthouse.
The federal civil rights suit claims court officials unfairly denied the group's request to meet in an empty courtroom or jury deliberation room.
The Bible study group had met in the courthouse regularly since 2000, but in April 2006, the suit said, court officials banned the meeting, saying it violated court policy.
The
Rutherford Institute reports (excerpt):
The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will hear arguments on Wednesday, Oct.
3, 2007, regarding the right of the high school football coach to silently bow
his head and bend his knee while members of the football team engage in the
time-honored practice of student-initiated pre-game prayer. A federal court
ruled in July 2006 that officials at East Brunswick School District in New
Jersey violated Coach Borden's constitutional rights when they forbade him from
bowing his head or "taking a knee" during pre-game student prayers.
However, the school district appealed the decision with the assistance of
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The latest version of ENDA no longer includes “gender identity” as a protected class and contains a broader exception for religious institutions. However, the legislation still recognizes “real or perceived sexual orientation” as a protected class and adds a two-part test that religious organizations must pass in order to have their beliefs on sexual morality protected. Furthermore, the legislation still burdens businesses with unnecessary regulation which could cause a litigious nightmare and harm work force morale. The committee markup originally scheduled for today has been postponed. AdvanceUSA will continue monitoring the situation closely.
UPDATE: Fox News reports on the delay in ENDA legislation due to concerns over “transgender” protections. The article includes quotes from liberal LGBT activists.
 The New York Times reports that the Bureau of Prisons has announced it will reconsider its policy regarding the approval of religious texts in the nations’ prisons and will immediately restore the confiscated books back to prisons (except for books deemed obviously to incite violence) until the policy can be reevaluated.
Rather than having a government agency determining what acceptable religious texts are, a sensible alternative would be to have the Bureau of Prisons prohibit any text which is deemed to incite violent or illegal activity. In this way the government would not be seen as “establishing” a particular religion but would be merely enforcing a sensible measure to prevent violence and terrorist recruitment in our nation’s prisons. Religion would no longer be the issue.
The United States Senate voted this morning on an amendment to the Defense bill that would make hate (thought) crimes based on “perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity” a federal matter. Unfortunately the amendment passed by a vote of 60 - 39. Fortunately, there appear to be sufficient votes to sustain the veto the president has promised. To see how your senators voted see the vote chart below.
For more information on hate crimes click here or check the other blog posts in the hate crimes category.
Senate Cloture Vote on the Kennedy Amendment (S.A. 3035) adding federal hate crimes language to a war funding bill (60 votes needed to pass - PASSED)
September 27, 2007
Full Results | News Story
|
|
|
Yeas |
|
Nays |
|
PRES |
|
NV |
|
Republican |
|
9 |
|
39 |
|
— |
|
1 |
|
Democratic |
|
50 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Independent |
|
1 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
TOTALS |
|
60 |
|
39 |
|
— |
|
1 |
 Startling new developments have arisen regarding the hate (thought) crimes bill. Today Sen. Harry Reid offered hate crimes legislation as an amendment to the Defense Department reauthorization bill. Because of the method he used to offer this amendment, it could be voted on as early as Wednesday but certainly by Thursday.
Please make every effort to call both your senators today and urge them to vote "No" on Senate Amendment 3035 (i.e. "hate crimes amendment") to the Department of Defense reauthorization bill!
Hate crimes laws are unjust, constitutionally questionable, and a subtle, yet very real, threat to religious freedom. For more information on hate (thought) crimes legislation check the AdvanceUSA home page or the hate crimes category at AdvanceUSA Blog.
To protect equal justice under the law and religious freedom, please call your senators today!
AdvanceUSA
has obtained an email by the radical liberal group Americans United for the
Separation of Church and State (AU) calling on charter schools to cease
religious activity. Apparently the AU would rather protect the total
“separation of church and state” which cannot be found in the Constitution,
rather than the First Amendment which can be found in the Constitution. Here
is a press release from AU.
Below is
the text of the AU email:
September 19, 2007
Americans United Calls on Washington,
D.C., Charter School
to Cease Religious Activities
School-Sponsored Religion At Washington Latin
School Violates
Constitution, Says Church-State Watchdog Group
A Washington,
D.C., charter school that
conducts graduations and other school gatherings in a church sanctuary and
whose headmaster leads students in prayer is running afoul of the First
Amendment, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Americans United has warned that school-sponsored
religious activities at Washington
Latin School
violate the principle of church-state separation and urged officials to cease
conducting school gatherings in church settings and leading students in prayer.
From the Philadelphia
Inquirer:
Refusing to allow gay couples to hold civil unions in a
boardwalk pavilion has cost a Methodist church group in Monmouth County
its state tax exemption for the property.
The state Department of Environmental Protection on Monday
stripped the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of a property tax exemption
for the boardwalk pavilion…
Tax
exempt status today, ____________ tomorrow.
UPDATE: Maggie Gallagher covers the story
in a piece called “Can
New Jersey punish Methodists for marriage?” at TownHall.
AdvanceUSA
Blog recently
reported on the move by federal prisons to ban all non-approved religious
texts from prison libraries. AdvanceUSA has learned that RSC Chairman Jeb
Hensarling (R-TX), VAT Chairman Joe Pitts (R-PA), and Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL)
have sent a letter to Mr. Harley Lappin, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, to ask that an inquiry be made into this possible breach of the free
exercise of religion.
Click
here to view the letter. An RSC press release relating to this
incident can
be found here.
Sen.
Gordon Smith (R-OR) today tried to offer his hate
crimes bill as an amendment to the Department of Defense (DOD)
reauthorization bill. Fortunately, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was on hand to
object to the unanimous consent motion required to consider the amendment
“pending.” After this objection Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) stormed onto the
Senate floor vowing to get the hate crimes bill onto the DOD bill and said the
hate crimes bill related to military funding because it sought to combat
“domestic terrorism” supposedly aimed at homosexuals. Here is an excerpt
from Sen. Kennedy’s remarks:
I have every intention, with Senator Smith, at some time
of offering the hate crimes legislation. I know the question comes up why are
we offering hate crime legislation on a defense authorization bill? Well, the
answer is very simple. the defense authorization bill is dealing with the
challenges of terrorism and the hate crimes issue, to try and get a handle on
the problems of hate crimes, we're talking about domestic terrorism, domestic
terrorism.
Apparently
Sen. Kennedy thinks those who oppose the federal prosecution of suspected
thoughts and beliefs, who seek to uphold “equal justice under law,” and who
oppose granting special legal privileges to sexual preference, are terrorists
akin to Al-Quaida and the Taliban.
A federal
court in California
recently ruled on the propriety of jurors
consulting scripture when conducting death penalty deliberations.
Fortunately the death penalty verdict was not overturned because of one of the jurors
quoting scripture during deliberations, but the court’s evident animosity to
the scriptures shows the influence of secularism in our legal system.
The New
York Times reports that prison chaplains
are being forced to remove thousands of religious books from prison libraries
out of a fear of extremist texts inciting people to terrorism. Excerpt:
“It’s swatting a fly with a
sledgehammer,” said Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship, a Christian
group. “There’s no need to get rid of literally hundreds of thousands of books
that are fine simply because you have a problem with an isolated book or piece
of literature that presents extremism.”
On
September 5 hearings were held in the House Education and Labor Committee on
ENDA. The hearings were rather one-sided as 6 witnesses and 3
Representatives supported the bill, one witness merely expressed concerns with
the legislation, and only one witness opposed ENDA. For transcripts of
witness’s testimony from the hearings click here.
For more information on this dangerous assult on religious freedom and simple fairness check our ENDA blurb on the AdvanceUSA home page.
This story
is from the Alliance Defense Fund:
“a parent [was] barred from reading the Bible in her
child’s classroom as part of a school assignment where parents were invited to
read their child’s favorite book. The
child, a kindergarten student, asked his mother to read from the Bible as part
of a Social Studies assignment that had no content restrictions. On May 31, a federal district court sided
with the school, and the case is now on appeal.”
And
“the teacher permitted another parent to discuss the
Jewish religious holidays of Passover and Hanukkah with the class. In place of the Bible, Wesley’s teacher
suggested that Mrs. Busch read a book “about witches and Halloween” to the
class.”
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), introduced in April and scheduled for a hearing on September 5, would create new privileged classes under the guise of prohibiting employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Far from guaranteeing constitutional rights to a discriminated race or gender, this bill would grant special privileges to those who participate in homosexual activity and heap more intrusive regulations on businesses and organizations, including some religious organizations.
There are a number of serious problems with ENDA. Many employers who have religious objections to hiring homosexuals or transgenders would be prohibited from refusing to hire such a person based on those beliefs. Furthermore, many who have suffered real discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as race or gender, see adding sexual orientation as a protected class as an insult to what they suffered and achieved in the civil rights movement. Finally, if passed, ENDA could help make gay marriage and civil union legislation all the more likely.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), one of the most liberal members of Congress, has introduced the bill in the House (H.R. 2015), and it is now in several House committees. With heavy support from labor unions a similar bill will surely be proposed in the Senate so concerned citizens should be watchful. While churches are exempt from ENDA, other religious organizations are not, resulting in serious assaults to freedom of religion. Call your representative today and urge him or her to vote “No” on H.R. 2015, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)!
This
video tells the story of Joe and Helen Roberts in Britain who were given a stern
warning by police for politely voicing their opposition to the active promotion
of homosexuality by their local government. Their story is frightening
evidence of why hate crimes laws such as S. 1105 (now in the Senate) should not
be passed in America.
Though S. 1105 may or may not directly threaten speech in the pulpit (there is
still some debate among legal experts), hate crimes laws will no doubt lead to
the adoption of “hate speech” monitoring or laws which would directly obstruct
the rights of Christians to share biblical truth.
Hate
crimes laws also violate the principle of “equal justice under law” by
prosecuting criminals who commit the same crimes differently based solely on
perceived internal beliefs. For more information on hate crimes click
here.
 Tuesday afternoon AdvanceUSA, along with educators,
community leaders, and education advocates, attended the “Compassion in Action
Roundtable” sponsored by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives. The topic of the roundtable was “Real Choices for
Educational Improvement: How Faith-Based and Community Organizations Help
Bridge the Achievement Gap.”
A number
of government, church, educational, and community leaders shared success
stories of rising test scores and parental satisfaction because of the
intervention of faith-based and community organizations. Among the
speakers were Bishop William Lori who spoke about the dramatic improvements in
inner city schools in Bridgeport,
Connecticut as well as Sally
Sachar, Virginia Walden-For, and Chris Kelly who highlighted the DC Opportunity
Scholarship Program which benefits low income families in the nation’s capital.
AdvanceUSA
was pleased to hear several speakers emphasize the need for school
choice. Two general categories of school choice were discussed.
Vouchers are direct payments by the government to parents or
schools in order to provide for students’ private or public education thus
providing more options than just the local school district.
Tax Credits allow parents to deduct some or all of their tuition
payments from their taxes, or they give individuals or businesses a tax credit
for contributing to a non-public school scholarship fund. Some school
choice advocates prefer this method as it minimizes government involvement in
private school affairs.
The U.S.
Department of Education’s new report entitled “Education Options in the States:
State Programs that Provide Financial Assistance for Attendance at Private
Elementary or Secondary Schools” was also highlighted at the event and can
be read online here.
AdvanceUSA
hopes this interesting and inspiring meeting will help advance the cause of
school choice for parents and further improve the state of education in America through
the efforts of faith-based and community initiatives.
For more
information on school choice ideas check the AdvanceUSA pro-family page.
This
excerpt from a
Newsday article says it all:
“A New Jersey church group is suing the state
over whether the organization should be required to allow a lesbian couple to
hold a civil union ceremony at a beachfront pavilion owned by the group.”
Stories
like this clearly demonstrate how the gay agenda can often clash with religious
liberty.
A court in Georgia has dismissed charges against Frederic Baumann who was arrested for passing out religious literature on public property.
“Christians have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else in America and cannot be treated as second-class citizens. The government should not force them to get special permission before practicing their constitutional right to free speech. The fact that the court dismissed the charges against Mr. Baumann is not just significant for him but for all citizens who cherish their First Amendment rights.”
- David Cortman, ADF Senior Legal Counsel
AdvanceUSA last reported on this story on July 17.
Do you think
the federal government should be able to prosecute people for their
beliefs? Do you think some citizens should receive more legal protection than
others? All these things could happen if the Senate passes S. 1105, the
hate (thought) crimes bill. Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Smith (R-OR) have
proposed adding this
legislation to the Defense Reauthorization bill (H.R. 1585, currently being
debated) as Amendment 2067.
Besides
the important “equal justice” concerns, there is reason to believe that hate
crimes laws such as S. 1105 could infringe on our cherished rights of
religious freedom as similar laws have been used to prosecute Christians for
proclaiming a Biblical perspective on homosexuality.
Call both your
senators today and urge them to vote “No” on Amendment 2067!
For more
information on hate crimes and this particular bill, check the hate crime
material on the AdvanceUSA home
page.
A federal court has again ruled that Brittany McComb should have her day in court. In 2006 Brittany had her microphone turned off during her valedictorian address when she began to speak of her personal faith in Christ. Brittany filed a civil rights lawsuit, and the recent federal court ruling rejected the attempt by Clark County School District officials to dismiss that lawsuit.
To see the video of Brittany’s speech click on the video below or click here.
Today George
Will writes about the outrageous case in Oakland, California in which
government employees were forbidden to mention such “offensive” words as
“natural family,” “marriage,” and “family values.” This is a blatant
assault on First Amendment rights of free speech. Unfortunately, many
in American political discourse have sought through legislation or the courts
to silence the views of their ideological opponents rather than engaging them
in open debate.
The
Supreme Court today ruled that a tax-paying citizen with a grudge against
religion cannot bring a faith-based organization to court without just cause.
This is a
great victory for faith-based organizations. Hopefully this will
overcome a barrier to effective faith-based ministry, allowing such groups to
flourish and benefit our nation in ways only they can.
To read the Court’s decision click here.
The High Impact Leadership Coalition (a coalition of black religious leaders) has just released this exceptional advertisement that seeks to awaken people to the very real dangers of hate (thought) crimes legislation. Stopping “hate crimes” sounds like a noble goal but in actuality it would pose serious threats to religious freedom. Furthermore, the whole concept of hate crimes is inherently unjust and unconstitutional because if violates our cherished principle of “equal justice under law.”
Thought crimes bills are a clear and present danger to constitutional principles and religious freedom. For more information on thought crimes click here or visit AdvanceUSA’s religious freedom page.
Note: The current hate crimes bill (S. 1105) is now in the Senate, but it is unclear when the Senate will actually consider the legislation. AdvanceUSA will be watching carefully for any further developments.
A troubling development is coming to light regarding religious freedom in our nation's prisons. It has been reported that religious books (including Christian texts) are being removed in mass from prison libraries across the country. While we acknowledge that convicted criminals are not entitled to the same privileges as ordinary citizens, and we understand the advisability of restricting inflammatory religious material which advocates violence, this sweeping book removal is very disconcerting for the precedent it sets for religious freedom.
Here’s a troubling update on religious liberty in Malaysia, or the lack thereof. With the sounds of Islamic protestors outside shouting “Alah is great,” a Muslim lady was forbidden by a Malaysian court from officially registering her religion as “Christian.” This is another reminder of how we should cherish the religious liberty we still have in the United States.
Ken Blackwell offers
his insightful perspective on the hate crimes bill recently passed by the
House. The Senate is now faced with the bill and is expected to consider it this year, perhaps within the next month or two.
CitizenLink reports on this shining example of liberal “tolerance.”
UPDATE:
Exodus International is defending statements by President Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General on the medical dangers of homosexual activity and in support of the rights of self-determination for ex-gays. The whole fiasco bares witness to the rampant “intolerance” and outright bigotry of many in the radical homosexual movement. A PFOX press release on the issue can be read on NewsWire. An informative email exchange between a Human Rights Campaign employee and an ex-gay usefully illustrates the harassment and bigotry faced by those who have walked away from homosexuality.
When junior high students in Oswego, Illinois were given the opportunity to create puzzle pieces that would be pieced together to form a school mural, Melissa Yates decided to paint a cross. Her puzzle piece was immediately erased out of the misguided belief that the cross somehow violated the “separation of church and state.” Fortunately, the Alliance Defense Fund contacted the school on Melissa’s behalf advocating for her rights of free speech and religious expression, and the cross was once again allowed in the school mural.
Though it may seem like a small victory, little steps like these help combat the anti-religious freedom sentiment that has gradually crept into our culture.
To see a picture of Melissa’s cross click here.
Shannon Spaulding's graduation speech in Jacksonville, Florida, in which she spoke at length about her faith in Jesus Christ, received broad support from the audience at the time, but now a fire storm is erupting over her comments about sin, hell, and Jesus Christ. ABC News reports here.
The school board of Odessa, Texas
decided to institute a basic Bible literacy course as a required elective for
high school students. The school board has now been sued by some Odessa residents with the
help of the ACLU. Once again, the ACLU's crusade to eradicate
Christianity from the public square continues.
During yesterday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, a former Dept. of Justice employee named Monica Goodling was giving testimony in the fired U.S. attorneys kerfuffle. What is significant for Christians and defenders of the First Amendment is how Rep. Stephen Cohen turned the hearing into an inquisition on the nature of Regent University, a Christian university and Monica Goodling's alma mater. You can view video of the questioning (skip to the 2:45 mark for the exchange) or read the transcript (excerpts below or look for Rep. Cohen's name half-way through the link).
Later in the hearing representatives Forbes and King discussed the successes of Regent and the Christian foundings of both Harvard and Yale. See the excerpts below.
UPDATE: Byron York at National Review Online has a summary of the hearing with Cohen's comments highlighted.
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS
REP. STEPHEN I. COHEN, D-TENN.:Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Goodling, I've read your vitae and it says that you grew up and you mostly went -- you went to public schools.Is that K through 12?
GOODLING:Yes.
COHEN:And it says you went to Christian universities in part because of the value they placed on service.
What was the other part, that you chose Christian universities?
Wendy Kaminer takes an insightful look at what kinds of "free speech" the ACLU will and will not defend. The same organization that defended the rights of neo-Nazis in Skokie, IL will not defend a young man with a religious opposition to homosexuality.
Hate (thought) crimes are wrong/dangerous/foolish on so many levels. In this piece George Will applies some common sense to the issue.
For more information on the dangers of thought crimes click here.
Unfortunately, the dangerous, unnecessary, and unconstitutional thought crimes bill (H.R. 1592) passed in the House of Representatives and will eventually be considered by the U.S. Senate. Fortunately, President Bush has indicated that he will veto the legislation.
For more information on the important topic of hate (thought) crimes click here.
|
|
|
| |