Showdown Between ACLU and Liberty Counsel Over Gideon Bible Distribution

The Liberty Counsel public interest law firm issued a press release today about Roark v. South Iron R-1 School District, which has gone up on appeal from a hostile District Court ruling that would prohibit the distribution of Bibles from a stationary table to voluntary recipients.

St. Louis, MO – Today, a three-member panel of the federal court of appeals enters the fray in a case arising out of the distribution of Gideon Bibles to school children. Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, is presenting oral argument on behalf of the South Iron School District (“District”) and its equal access policy, in the case of Roark v. South Iron R-1 School District.

The District policy permits outside groups to distribute literature from a stationary table, irrespective of whether the literature is secular or religious. Under this policy, an outside group may offer Bibles to students who wish to take them in the same manner as other nonreligious groups are permitted to distribute secular literature.

In September 2006, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the District to stop the Gideons from providing Bibles to public school students. Federal district Judge Catherine Perry issued an order prohibiting the distribution of any Bible, which she derisively described as an “instrument of religion.”

The District then adopted a written equal access policy that treats the distribution of secular and religious literature outside of class on an equal basis. Outside groups may apply to distribute literature from stationary tables in two designated locations. The literature cannot be distributed in the classroom, nor can school officials be involved.

Judge Perry also ruled the District’s equal access policy unConstitutional, saying that under the content-neutral policy it is possible that the Bible could be distributed, and that, she said, would be unconstitutional. The ruling presented a novel (and unConstitutional) theory that a private third party (like the ACLU) must have the opportunity to veto the distribution request of the private applicant. The veto power, the judge wrote, must be provided to veto religious, but not secular, literature.

Matt Staver commented on today’s hearing: “The Bible cannot be singled out for special penalties like contraband. How ironic that in America, until recent times, the Bible formed the basis of education, and now its mere presence is radioactive in the opinion of some judges.

The Founders never envisioned such open hostility toward the Christian religion as we see today in some venues. To single out the Bible alone for discriminatory treatment harkens back to the Dark Ages. America deserves better. Our Constitution should be respected, not disregarded.

Audio of the oral argument will be made available on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals website at http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/oralargs/oaFrame.html, and there will be abundant links from Liberty Counsel's website at http://www.lc.org/.

Christians Brace for Obama Appointees

According to this press release from the American Center for Law and Justice, the incoming Obama administration's position on a U.N. resolution against "religious defamation" bears watching.

Pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the measure could be used to silence Christians and to prevent Muslims from voluntarily converting to other faiths, which is already a capital crime in some Islamic countries.

Christian activists are also closely following Obama's Federal Communications Commissioner appointments, in anticipation of a campaign by the American Left to suppress Christian and conservative talk radio by means of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

An Obama Administration & Keeping an Eye on the U.N.

A new Administration means change and at the American Center for Law and Justice, we're closely examining what's at stake as President-elect Obama begins to govern. At the same time, we're monitoring developments at the United Nations, where an anti-Christian resolution is up for a vote.

The new president is moving fast, naming Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his new chief of staff as well as beginning to float names for his Cabinet. He has also made clear what his first 100 days will look like, pledging to sign as many as 200 executive orders. With these orders, President-elect Obama is promising to overturn President Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, restore the ban on offshore drilling and reinstate taxpayer funding for the United Nations Population Fund, an organization committed to coerced abortions.

There's already movement in reshaping the nation's Federal Communications Commission, the agency that would be critical in re-launching the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a measure that would cripple Christian and conservative talk radio.

The new president named made two appointments to the FCC "transition team" -- Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach to the posts. Werbach, a former counsel at the FCC during the Clinton Administration, specializes in information and communication technologies. With Obama's first chance of appointing a new FCC commissioner coming in June of 2009, we will be keeping an eye on who he appoints. A simply majority of the five commissioners is all an Obama Administration needs to re-implement the so called Fairness Doctrine.

Also being discussed this week in Washington, DC is the change in committee and subcommittee structures in both the House and Senate. With Democrats soon to hold as much as a three vote majority in many of the committees in the Senate and even bigger margins in the House, it is critical that we keep an eye on what is going on behind the scenes.

Pro-life riders, increased funding for Planned Parenthood, the Employer Non-Discrimination Act and a host of other issues will be decided in these committees. At the same time, there will be much attention focused on the next Congress and the issue of judicial nominations.

As you know, for years Democrats blocked many of President Bush's nominees to the federal judiciary with filibusters. With a new majority in the Senate that may reach 60 seats for the Democrats, it would make it much more difficult for Republicans to challenge the new president's judicial nominees. Of course, in addition to the numerous vacancies in the federal judiciary, the Obama Administration will make nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court, should a vacancy or vacancies occur.

While we're focused on the new developments unfolding in Washington, we're also concerned about what's taking place at the United Nations.

In recent months, we've talked a lot about the resolution on the Defamation of Religions - a measure that protects the religion of Islam while targeting other religions including Christianity - a measure being pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

As our international affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), has reported in the past, the OIC uses the concept of "defamation of religions" as both sword and shield. In Islamic countries, blasphemy laws are used as a shield to protect the dominant religion, but even more dangerously, they are used to silence minority religious believers - especially Christians - and prevent Muslims from converting to other faiths, which is still a capital crime in many Islamic countries.

Tomorrow in the U.N. - in what is known as the Third Committee - this troubling resolution will receive a vote. If it clears the committee, it is likely the General Assembly at the U.N. will vote on it early in December. We will have representatives at the U.N. tomorrow and bring you an update on Wednesday.

Without question, this is a time of change. Our Government Affairs team is working to ensure that the ACLJ is in a position to stand up for your constitutional and religious freedoms - as the nation prepares for a new president and a new Congress which convenes in early 2009.

We will continue to report on upcoming changes and let you know how you can make a difference.

Regent Law Student's Account of Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Regent Law student Leandra Rayford wrote this first-person account after returning from watching American Center for Law and Justice chief counsel Jay Sekulow argue Pleasant Grove City vs. Summum last week. Sekulow is an adjunct professor at Regent, where Rayford is one of his students. She worked at the ACLJ last summer, and had a piece of the early research that Sekulow relied on. Here is Leandra's story:

Pleasant Grove Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Today I had one of the greatest experiences--if not the greatest-- of my law school career: I went to hear oral arguments at the Supreme Court of the United States on the case Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. This summer when I was given the opportunity to work at the American Center for Law and Justice and do research on monuments throughout the country, I don't think I really comprehended what preparation for a Supreme Court argument entails. However, even though I stopped working for the ACLJ once school started, I have been enrolled in a class that has been following Dr. Sekulow's preparation for oral arguments.


A couple of weeks ago, our class (about 30 students, I think) gave Dr. Sekulow a moot court session where for two hours we asked him questions about the facts, legal analysis, and hypotheticals. He had previously done a 6 hour moot court with a different group. Having traveled and done moot courts in different areas, he engaged in two more moot court sessions at Regent, where he not only practiced his answers, but also the etiquette of the court: yielding to a justice who is speaking, knowing which justice to address and answer first when multiple are talking at once, asking permission to continue answers, etc.


Yesterday, those of us in the class (plus a few others) went up on a bus to D.C., stayed the night in a hotel a few blocks from the Supreme Court, and then (when our bus failed to show up) walked to the Supreme Court at 5 am to stand in line for tickets to get in and hear the oral arguments. Not only students in the class were there, but also students who clerked (like me) this summer for the ACLJ. For four hours, we endured the biting cold of the fall morning and stood outside in line, as bundled up as possible. Then... they started letting us in, but a horrible thing happened-- not everyone in our class got in to the building. Apparently there more more seats reserved than anticipated, and also some people who were connected to Regent in some way (such as graduates or spouses) showed up and were before students in line. Also, there were a few people not connected to the school interspersed with the students.


I was looking back at some of my friends wondering what they were going to do, and when I was seated in the courtroom (and this says a lot for his character to me), Dr. Sekulow asked if all the students got in, because he was actually thinking about his students and not just his argument. When I responded "no, sir" he was upset and tried to figure out what happened; the simple fact was that there were too many people!


At 10 am I was slightly puzzled that the justices had not yet appeared. I was told the Supreme Court was very prompt, so I looked back and forth at the two large courthouse clocks (the room is amazing, by the way, with large friezes around the room of historical law givers and a ceiling that reminded me of Rome). At 10:02, the police officers indicated that we should rise just as the Chief Justice walked into the courthouse. It was time for the fun to begin. :)


In all honestly, I'm not quite sure what happened for the first 7 minutes or so. I'm pretty sure that an opinion was read by the Court for a case, but I don't know what the case was about and I was somewhat shaking-- both from trying to get warm and nerves. Then, another really cool thing happened: we got to see people being admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court. After a few others, Dr. Sekulow made a motion that the court accept Regent professors Darius Davenport, Scott Pryor, and Lynn Kohm into the bar, as well as others. Then, all those admitted were sworn in.


Finally, Chief Justice Roberts called the case, and Dr. Sekulow began his argument. He got through about 44 seconds before any questions started from the court, and I was surprised at how long he had to answer questions about the Establishment Clause (an estimated 5 minutes). He also quoted pages of text, which I was amazed at--once again-- that he could do just off the top of his head. What was almost comical was to hear how fast he talked in trying to get his point across, only to have the pace of the argument slowed substantially by a justice asking a question.

Thinking about it now, I do laugh because he would be on a roll answering a question, and then Justice Ginsburg would cut in with a question that it seemed she would never finish because it took so long to ask. Also, Justice Souter (I think it was him) seemed to ask a ton of questions at one point on government speech, and I was definitely proud of how moot courts had gone at Regent as some of the questions he had were similar to those that came up, which meant I knew Dr. Sekulow had a prepared answer. It seemed that his argument went on for a very long time, and it turns out I was correct; while he had talked about possibly reserving 10 minutes for rebuttal, he only reserved two!!

The next person to present (for Pleasant Grove) did so on behalf of the government. He got through about 12 seconds, I think, before asking a question, and talked noticeably slower than Dr. Sekulow. Though I can't remember the certain phrase he used, he seemed to have a theme to his argument because I remember noticing that he said the exact same sentence multiple times as answers to different questions. I couldn't tell if he was just trying to drive it home, or if he kept saying it because he was trying to justify it in different ways if the justices did not agree.

Finally came the attorney for Summum. She got out a whopping nine seconds of speech before her opening statement was cut off with a question. I honestly don't remember much of her argument because it did not make much sense to me, and apparently I was not alone in that as a justice commented that he did not understand what she was saying. I do remember her saying that she believed a city could only adopt a monument by doing so formally and in writing stipulating such. She also got many hypotheticals; Justice Scalia definitely asked her a ton of questions. The attorney backed herself into a corner and finally conceded that one of his examples would be government speech (although to keep her point, she shouldn't have agreed with him).

In rebuttal, one of the things I noticed was a lack of an example which ran through all of our moot court sessions-- Fred Phelps and his church wanting to put up monuments. However, Dr. Sekulow told us later that he did so on the spur of the moment, choosing instead to use that with a 9/11 monument such as the park has, under the current 10th Circuit ruling, a person would have to also be allowed to put up an Al Qaeda monument.

Overall, hearing the oral arguments was an amazing experience. Then, at a reception at the ACLJ, I met the current mayor of Pleasant Grove City. Suddenly all my work from this summer and even in the class had a face to it; before it was just a city some place in Utah, even though I read the depositions of citizens and the mayor. Meeting the mayor somehow also gave me more of a sense of urgency regarding the case, because, as he said "it's [his] case, and all [he] can do is show up and watch and wait."

So now we all wait... The Supreme Court will release its decision sometime before the end of the term, and that's really all we know. The arguments were phenomenal, the experience was once-in-a-lifetime, and once again I feel blessed to be a part of Regent Law School.

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum: It Was Contentious, as Expected

The Supreme Court's decision on Pleasant Grove City v. Summum is too close to call, and it may come down to the wavering Justice Anthony Kennedy once again, to judge by this Bloomberg News Service account of oral arguments Nov. 12.

A transcript of the arguments in .pdf form is linked in the Legal Documents blogroll at left, under "Pleasant Grove City v. Summum." Here is the Bloomberg account.

Bloomberg - Religious Displays in Parks Divide U.S. Supreme Court Justices
November 12, 2008
By Greg Stohr, Bloomberg

U.S. Supreme Court justices clashed over a Utah town's decision to allow a Ten Commandments monument in a public park, as they weighed a bid by [Summum] to erect its own display.

The justices today heard arguments on a federal appeals court ruling that said the town of Pleasant Grove must give equal access to Summum, [ wants to display its "seven aphorisms."

That prospect had several justices voicing concern about a free-for-all in public parks and museums. Among them were Chief Justice John Roberts, who asked whether the government would have to balance the message conveyed by the Statute of Liberty.

"Do we have to have a Statue of Despotism?" Roberts asked. "Or do we have to put any president who wants to be on Mount Rushmore?"

On the other side were justices who said they worried about giving the government unfettered discretion over the messages displayed on public property. Justice John Paul Stevens asked whether the government could "decide not to put up the names of any homosexual soldiers" on the Vietnam Memorial in Washington.

The Supreme Court in 2005 said governments can post the Ten Commandments on public property as part of a broader display of historical or moral symbols. That case centered on the Constitution's establishment clause and the limits it places on government support for religion in the public square.

In the latest case, Summum opted not to invoke the establishment clause to seek removal of the Ten Commandments display. The group instead pointed to the Constitution's free-speech guarantee, saying the town must give equal access to other religions and viewpoints in the park.

'Public Forum'

A federal appeals court in Denver said Pleasant Grove had created a "public forum" in the park and generally would have to give all groups an equal right to erect monuments.

Pleasant Grove contends that its monument is exempt from the equal-access requirement because the display is a form of government speech, not private expression. The Fraternal Order of Eagles gave the city the Ten Commandments monument in 1971.

Summum's lawyers say the monument doesn't qualify as government speech because the town never formally adopted the message on the monument as its own.

Though not directly at issue in the case, the establishment clause question lurked close to the surface in today's argument. Roberts said a declaration that the Pleasant Grove monument was government speech would make it harder for the city to argue that it wasn't favoring one religion over another.

"You're really just picking your poison, aren't you?" he asked the town's lawyer, Jay Sekulow.

Establishment Clause

Justice David Souter said a high court ruling forcing the city to adopt the Ten Commandments message as its own would be fatal to the town's defense under the establishment clause.

"Isn't that what is driving this?" he asked Summum's lawyer, Pamela Harris.

Harris said the city was trying to avoid having to formally subscribe to the particular version of the Ten Commandments on the park monument. She said the town "wants to have it both ways."

Sekulow likened the city's role to that of a "museum curator" who selects which exhibits to display. Bush administration lawyer Daryl Joseffer made similar arguments in support of the city.

They drew their strongest support from Justice Antonin Scalia. "You can't run a museum if you have to accept everything, right?" Scalia said.

Ginsburg Comments

Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Souter in suggesting the Ten Commandments display violated the establishment clause. She later said she wasn't aware of "any tradition" of allowing groups to erect monuments on free-speech grounds.

Several justices signaled they were torn by the case and were looking for a way to limit any unintended consequences from the court's ruling.

"Do we have to decide this case that it's all or nothing?" Justice Anthony Kennedy asked.

The Ten Commandments depict the rules that Jews and Christians believe God handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. Summum, a Salt Lake City-based church founded in 1975, says its aphorisms came from an earlier set of tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain and then destroyed in anger.

The Summum aphorisms include "the principle of psychokinesis" and "the principle of correspondence."

The court will issue a ruling by July.

Pray for Jay, November 12

Constitutional litigator Jay Sekulow will argue Pleasant Grove City v. Summum before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow.

Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), will argue on behalf of Pleasant Grove City, Utah. The case centers on a distinction between government speech and private speech.

A three-judge federal appeals court panel ruled in favor of a group called Summum to erect its own monument of "Seven Aphorisms" in a city park in Pleasant Grove, the site of a long-standing display of the Ten Commandments donated to the city decades ago. When the full appeals court convened en banc to rehear the case, it split 6-6 and decided not to try again. This left the three-judge panel's decision undisturbed.

The ACLJ asked the Supreme Court to take the case and overturn the lower court decision that private parties have a First Amendment right to put up the monuments of their choosing in a city park, unless the city takes away all other donated monuments. Sekulow argues that the appellate panel's ruling runs counter to well-established precedent that the government has to be neutral toward private speech, but it does not have to be neutral in its own speech.

"In short, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny." Unless reversed, the Tenth Circuit ruling will "force local governments to remove long-standing and well established patriotic, religious and historical displays."

Sekulow rehearsed his arguments under the pressure of a "moot court" at Regent University's School of Law Friday afternoon. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow, November 12.

Sekulow Will Argue 10 Commandments Case Before U.S. Supreme Court

American Center for Law and Justice Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow will argue Pleasant Grove City v. Summum before the U.S. Supreme Court next month. ACLJ attorneys have already submitted a series of legal briefs in the case about the right of government entities to display the Ten Commandments and to commemorate other civic virtues, heroism and aspirations without being obligated to give equal time and space to contrary opinions.

A three-judge federal appeals panel ordered Pleasant Grove City, Utah, to make equal space available in a city park for Summum's "The Seven Aphorisms" in response to a donated Ten Commandments display. When the appeals court met en banc to reconsider the panel's ruling, it split 6-6 and turned down a request to re-hear the dispute. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari, and has scheduled oral arguments for Nov. 12.

ACLJ briefs have argued that the appeals court's decision, if left standing, would obligate governments to accept a Hitler monument in response to WWII monuments, and a Statue of Tyranny in response to the Statue of Liberty.

An archive of briefs and news articles about the case is accessible on ACLJ's website at http://www.aclj.org/Cases/default.aspx?Section=120.

Hindu Violence Against Christians Spreads to Multiple Indian States

Gospel For Asia founder K.P. Yohannan reports that Hindu violence against Christians in India has spread from Orissa (state) to Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and normally serene Kerala. Indian Christians have come to expect recurring episodes of violence from Hindu extremists, but the recent attacks have been bloodier and have lasted longer than the usual spasms.

One irritant is Christian success at evangelizing and lifting the spirits of so-called Untouchables, to whose deference and slave-like service many higher-caste Hindus feel entitled. Another factor was the Maoist assassination, blamed on Christians by Hindu news media, of an extremist Hindu leader in Orissa.

Violence against Christians Rages in India

Rebel groups continue to burn and loot churches and attack Christians in Orissa and Karnataka, India, while new attacks are being reported in Uttar Pradesh and Kerala. While the attacks continue, the death toll among believers continues to rise as they struggle to survive in refugee camps where access to clean water and safe food is severely limited.

New Attacks in Uttar Pradesh
The latest report of violence came September 16 in Uttar Pradesh, a state in north central India, when four GFA missionaries were attacked while handing out tracts. Hindu extremists confronted the missionaries, grabbed their cell phones and used them to make threatening phone calls to the GFA state office. They vehemently told the men to "stop converting Hindus into Christianity" and mercilessly beat the missionaries.

A missionary school in Kerala was also attacked September 15, according to a report issued by the Evangelical Fellowship of India.

Orissa in Crisis
The situation is even grimmer in Orissa, where Hindu radicals have been on a rampage since August 22. This week, a mob estimated to be 500 people attacked a police station, killing one officer and taking several others hostage. The BBC reports that the incident is thought to be in retaliation for police opening fire on a group of Hindu protestors over the weekend. Four people died, and many others were injured in the ensuing melee.

The protestors were reported to have been on a rampage burning down homes and prayer halls in the village of Kurtamgarh. When police tried to disperse the crowd, someone in the group fired a shot and injured an officer. Police say they were forced to open fire to control the situation.

Attacks against Christians in Orissa were commonplace, but they intensified into an organized ethnic cleansing in late August after a prominent, vocal anti-Christian Hindu leader was murdered. The Maoists have repeatedly claimed responsibility for his death, but a radical fringe of his followers blamed Christians as an excuse to incite a violent rampage of burning and looting churches and burning Christians.

It is estimated that more than half of the 100,000 Christians in the state's Kandhamal district are now homeless. At least 20 people have been killed in the violence. Several Gospel for Asia missionaries are missing.

Thousands of Christians are living in relief camps or hiding out in Orissa's dense jungles. Even if the violence stopped today, they would not be able to leave their temporary shelters. Their homes have been destroyed—burned to the ground in most cases—and they have been told by their fellow villagers that they are not welcome to return to the community.

The situation in the relief camps is horrifying, according to GFA leaders.

"People are dying in the relief camps because of contaminated food and water," one leader said. "The militants are trying to stop relief from getting to the Christians. They are even coming into the relief camps torturing the people and taking away the supplies."

A GFA missionary stands in front of the charred doors of his church. Hindu extremists tried to burn it down, but the fire was put out before it spread to the rest of the building.
The leader said there has been one positive ray of hope in the midst of the carnage.

"The churches are coming together in unity. And it is only when the Christians come together in unity and prayer that anything will change," he said. "Our real fight is not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual things that we cannot see. But we can only deal with it through prayer and waiting upon the Lord."

Karnataka Protests
The city of Mangalore, in Karnataka on India's west coast, remains on a near shutdown as people protest the recent attacks on Christians and their places of worship. The Hindu extremists have attacked congregations three Sundays in a row. A Gospel for Asia missionary serves as pastor of one of the churches that was attacked on Sunday, September 14. The church was ransacked and set on fire, but the fire was put out before any significant damage could be done.

The rebels have also made numerous terroristic threats against churches throughout the state.

More than 50 people have been arrested in relation to the attacks, but this has not stopped the violence. Churches in Karnataka are now meeting under serious threats.

GFA missionaries in these areas shared the following prayer request:

Pray for continued unity among Christians.

Ask the Lord to send provision to the people hiding in the jungles and living in relief camps.

Pray for protection of the missionaries and their families who are being targeted by the extremists.

Pray for wisdom and discernment for GFA's state and regional leaders as they respond to the crisis.

Pray for the persecutors, that they would come to know Christ.

Federal District Court Rejects Challenge to DOMA

A Federal District Judge told attorneys yesterday he will dismiss a 2004 lawsuit by by same-sex marriage proponents to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Smelt v. Orange County (California) would have invalidated the act of Congress that protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

SCOTUS Certiorari in Offing?

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Turner v. City Council of the City of Fredericksburg this week that in an action alleging violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights arising from the imposition of a city policy requiring that legislative prayers be nondenominational, summary judgment for defendant-city council is affirmed where: 1) the prayers at issue are government speech, and thus the prayer policy does not violate plaintiff's Free Speech and Free Exercise rights; and 2) the requirement that the prayers be nondenominational does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held this week in Colorado Christian Univ. v. Weaver that in a university's challenge to Colorado's program that provides scholarships to eligible students who attend any accredited college in the state, public or private, secular or religious, other than those the state deems "pervasively sectarian", summary judgment for state defendants is reversed where: 1) the program expressly discriminates among religions without constitutional justification; and 2) its criteria for doing so involve unconstitutionally intrusive scrutiny of religious belief and practice.

City Officials Make Example of Idaho Believers Who Resist Secular Tide

When believers resisted Boise, Idaho officials who wanted to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a city park without any public hearing or citizen comment, they lost in court. City officials then persuaded the court to assess the believers $10,700 in attorney fees. When the believers were unable to pay, officials placed liens on their homes, and eventually demanded payment and moved toward foreclosure.

Donors rescue Idaho family advocates
by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

Donors have come to the rescue of Idaho Values Alliance in its squabble with the city.

When Boise, Idaho, officials tried to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a city park without a hearing or any citizen input, Idaho Values Alliance (IVA) president Bryan Fischer filed suit to slow the process down. "[They tried to move it] with no public input, no public hearing. We rallied hundreds of citizens in the Boise area to try to put a stop to that, including taking some legal action to try to slow the city down," Fischer explains. "The city went after me and a colleague of mine, Brandi Swindell of Generation Life."

The city won the case and moved the monument -- but then the court turned around and assessed the Alliance and Generation Life with $10,000 in attorney fees. "The city came after us for attorneys fees," Fischer adds, "got an award in the amount of $10,000 dollars against us, and recently made a move to foreclose on my house in order to collect that judgment."

After four years of silence, the city demanded payment and announced impending foreclosure on Fischer's home. There was a lien placed on Swindell's property as well, but Idaho residents who learned about the situation have raised the needed money and the judgment has been paid.

"Fortunately we had many concerned citizens in the Boise area come to our defense," the IVA president points out. "They generously made donations to a legal defense fund, and we were able to take care of that attorneys fee award by providing a check to the city of Boise for over $10,700."

Fischer says it was a scary moment because he could have lost his home in trying to stand up to the city.

Baptist church prevails in Alaska Superior Court lawsuit by ACLU, subject to appeal

An Alaskan church has won Round One against the ACLU after the militant secularist organization sued to strip the church of its property tax exemption on housing for parochial school teachers. Liberty Counsel, a Christian litigation ministry, represented Anchorage Baptist Temple in the case, Coonrod v. State of Alaska.

The case is subject to appeal. Although Alaska is in the generally leftist Ninth Circuit, the ACLU brought its case in the state courts. The appeal, if any, would not route through the federal circuit courts of appeal.

Here is Liberty Counsel's press release on the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings.

Alaska Court Upholds Religious Teachers’ Housing Exemptions Against ACLU Attack

Anchorage, AK – The Alaska Superior Court has ruled that Alaska can continue to allow tax exemptions for housing of parochial school teachers. The ACLU filed suit to take away property tax exemptions for housing that is owned by religious organizations and used by private parochial school teachers, alleging that the tax exemption violates equal protection and establishment clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Liberty Counsel represents Anchorage Baptist Temple (ABT) and Pastor Jerry Prevo in defense of the exemption. The case is Coonrod v. State of Alaska.

Superior Court Judge Mike Spaan ruled that a 2006 state law exempting organization-owned homes of religious educators is constitutional. The decision says tax exemptions are provided to religious and charitable organizations because they perform services that would otherwise have to be funded from tax revenues and because they foster the moral and intellectual development of the community.

The exemption given by the Alaska legislature applies to the homes of ABT's teachers. Nonreligious educational institutions already enjoyed an exemption for teacher housing before the legislature added the religious institution exemption. Without the exemption, ABT and other religious institutions would not be able to provide quality education to Alaska’s children, where educational opportunities are limited because of the rural nature of much of the state.

ABT operates a number of ministries, including alcohol and drug abuse recovery programs, community outreaches, children’s programs, a bus transportation service, music programs, and Anchorage Christian School, a K-12 school serving approximately 700 students. ABT owns six residences that house teachers. These residences are integral to ABT’s educational mission.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "This is a great victory for the children and families of Alaska. Many of these children living in remote areas will benefit from the opportunity to attend a local religious school, where a qualified teacher will give them the key to open the door to their future. The ACLU tried to educationally imprison these children. With its defeat, the children are the winners."