Law in the Catacombs

Ninth Circuit: Take Down That Cross

2011-01-05T22:51:00.000-08:00

FRC Calls Mt. Soledad Cross Ruling an Affront to Religious Liberty, American Tradition
Urges Full Ninth Circuit to Consider War Memorial Case

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) today called on the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to take up the Mt. Soledad Cross case, Trunk v. San Diego. Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Mt. Soledad war memorial is unconstitutional.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

"This decision by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit displays hostility toward religious imagery in the public square that ignores these essential aspects of religious liberty and American tradition.

"In 2001, when militants set out to bomb two colossal Buddhist statues that had stood untouched in Afghanistan for more than a thousand years, the global community rightly condemned the actions as religious barbarism. Like the statues, the Mt. Soledad Cross is a monument to America 's cultural history, a symbol of our Christian heritage and a tribute to brave Americans who laid down their lives in our nation's cause. Their memories should not be besmirched.

"This is the latest sad chapter in a decades-long fight over the Mt. Soledad cross. A Ninth Circuit panel glossed over several important aspects of this complicated case, failing to fully consider their legal importance, and then went on to apply the wrong test to decide this case. With all due respect to the panel, the full Ninth Circuit should now take the case to clean up this mess. If they refuse to do so, then the U.S. Supreme Court must right this wrong. The Mt. Soledad cross is fully constitutional."

Crude, Profane Lesbian With Supportive Boss Harassed Employees With Impunity at Historically Black Alabama College

2010-03-11T15:34:00.000-08:00

State Rep. John Knight, Alabama State University's second in command, says a lawsuit contending that three female university employees suffered repeated sexual and racial harassment that was condoned by ASU supervisors and officials is frivolous and possibly the handiwork of a disgruntled former university trustee.

The federal court suit contends that a female supervisor subjected one current and two former university employees to a wide variety of racial and sexual harassment, ranging from verbal harassment to inappropriate touching, and that ASU officials not only did little to correct the situation but retaliated against the employees who reported it.

But Knight, who is the executive vice president and chief operating officer at ASU, said it is political season and accused former university board member Joe Reed and the Alabama Education Association of using the lawsuit to fight progress at the university.

"There are people who served on the board in the past who do not like progress and are basically committed to fund any lawyers that want to have a lawsuit against Alabama State University," Knight said. "That is AEA and Joe Reed."

In the lawsuit, the three women contend that Lavonette Bartley, an associate executive director at the university, who at one time served as their supervisor, repeatedly harassed them -- even to the point of giving one of the women revealing clothing that she wanted her to wear to the office.

The women allege in the suit that they complained to at least three members of ASU's board of trustees, and Reed wasn't one of them. The complaints of harassment and discrimination go back to March 2008, and continue beyond the time Reed was forced to relinquish his seat on the board in September 2008.

Reed said none of the women ever made their complaints known to him while he was on the board.

Cynthia Williams, Jacqueline Weatherly and Lydia Burkhalter allege that Knight and other ASU supervisors not only condoned but also encouraged and sometimes participated in these abuses. Burkhalter alleges that Bartley made overt and Knight more subtle sexual advances toward her.

The women filed the lawsuit against the university on March 4 and are seeking compensation that includes back pay.

The suit contends that instead of trying to resolve complaints that were made in good faith concerning the problems, Knight and Bartley repeatedly retaliated against the plaintiffs. The suit also contends ASU's conduct was so "pervasive as to create a racially and sexually hostile working environment."

Candis McGowan, attorney for the three women, said they have a federally protected right to report discrimination and should not have been retaliated against for doing so.

Knight, who told the Montgomery Advertiser he was speaking on behalf of himself and not the university, said the lawsuit was frivolous and he was "shocked at some of the allegations that are in there."

Most of the allegations are aimed at Bartley, who is alleged to have regularly used the N-word when referring to the plaintiffs, other employees and even students. It also is alleged that Bartley routinely referred to female employees as "bitches," and often made sexually suggestive comments about their anatomy. She is even accused of inappropriately rubbing her breasts against Burkhalter.

According to the suit, Bartley allegedly once complained about employees' work performance, saying, "Y'all n******s gon' learn I ain't nothing to play with. When I need y'all bitches you better be there."

The Montgomery Advertiser, through Kenneth Mullinax Jr., director of public information and media relations, requested interviews with Knight, Bartley and President William Harris. Knight was the only official from ASU to respond.

Burkhalter alleges in court documents that on different occasions Knight made advances that she perceived as sexual in nature, and he once allegedly asked her to "dance for me" and promised that he could take her to parties she'd otherwise never get to attend.

In specifically addressing the allegations against him, Knight said they are "absolutely false. There is no validity to it at all."

"If anybody ever felt that was happening, then they were certainly dreaming," Knight said. He said he has tried his best during his professional career to treat employees with respect and dignity.

Knight said Williams and Burkhalter were terminated and are disgruntled employees. The lawsuit alleges that Williams and Burkhalter were both fired without cause as retaliation for reporting Bartley's alleged behavior.

When asked if he ever witnessed any improper behavior by Bartley, Knight said "absolutely not."

Knight said he became aware of the allegations when Weatherly filed her complaint with the university. He said the university encourages employees to report complaints about sexual harassment or a hostile work environment, as Weatherly did.

He said the university took the appropriate actions. The plaintiffs dispute Knight's recollection of events, alleging that attempts to transfer to other departments or to reach out to other officials were often thwarted by Knight. They also say it was nearly impossible for them to file additional complaints against Bartley and that they were told not to take their complaints further.

But Knight said the university followed procedures when Weatherly filed her complaint. He said after four days of testimony, the committee did not find any sexual harassment, but recommended sensitivity training for Bartley. He said he insisted she go to sensitivity training, that she has attended one session and that she is supposed to attend more training.

The lawsuit alleges that Bartley had not attended any training as of May 2009, which is the same month that Burkhalter was fired for allegedly abandoning her position.

In documents acquired by the Montgomery Advertiser about EEOC complaints against Bartley that were investigated by the university, the human resources director wrote in August 2008 that "Mrs. Bartley's intense involvement with various personnel was humiliating, condescending, intimidating and unwelcome behavior. This type behavior does and will interfere with one's work performance."

The EEOC committee at the university recommended, according to the August memo, giving Bartley a written reprimand "from her immediate supervisor."

Harris approved the recommendation in September 2008. The suit alleges that it took nearly eight months for Knight to act on the committee's recommendation, and when he did write the recommended reprimand, he allegedly wrote that it "does not result from my belief that you have created a hostile work environment within the context of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Knight said Bartley, whom he said he's known "a long time," continues to work under his supervision, but in a different position. He said she no longer supervises employees.

Pro-Abortion Scofflaws Fudge State Senate Votes on Bill to Outlaw Forced Abortions

2010-02-17T20:05:00.000-08:00

This is the kind of monkey business that Liberals feel entitled to use to sabotage the legislative process. Obviously, they have no respect for democratic self-government. We are to accept without question the dictates of the Leftist savants from on high. Any attempt by ordinary Virginians to govern themselves without first getting the anointed cultural elites' approval is seen as effrontery, unworthy of deference just because we won a vote in the Legislature.

[Virginia] pro-life advocates experienced a significant victory earlier this month: SB504, a bill "patroned" by Sen. Ralph Smith (R-22, Roanoke) that would criminalize coerced or forced abortion was referred to the full (Senate) Courts committee with a positive recommendation on a vote of 4-2 out of the Criminal subcommittee.

Currently, if a boyfriend or other impregnator physically threatens his pregnant girlfriend and forces her to have an abortion against her will, this form of domestic violence cannot be criminally prosecuted. SB504 would fix that.

That success is the furthest pro-life advocates have been legislatively with this topic. Never before has the bill been given a positive report out of any committee or subcommittee because the bill was always improperly placed in Senate Education and Health committee, (known as “the committee of death” because of the committee's reputation for killing all pro-life measures). This year was the first time the legislation was treated akin to all other bills that address civil or criminal penalties and was placed in the appropriate committee, Courts of Justice.

Knowledge of the players and the process suggests that if the bill gets a favorable report in the Courts of Justice committee and moves to the floor, it would likely win in the Senate. Since the House of Delegates has already voted favorably on this legislation in years past, we believe the House would pass it, sending it to the Governor. We are within inches of a major win!

To ensure that the bill would not get "brought back" and the result changed after we left the subcommittee room, an ally of The Family Foundation stayed in the room and kept watch on the subcommittee until it ended. Nothing happened.

However, when one of our lobbyists checked the bill's status online at the close of business, something was not right. The bill was listed as being referred to the Senate Education and Health committee, not the Courts of Justice committee as was voted on earlier in subcommittee! We have a video of the subcommittee vote on our blog as proof!

If the bill was legitimately referred to Senate Education and Health, its status online should still list the bill's history in Courts committee, and the corresponding votes. However, the way the bill's status appears now, it appears as if the bill was never even heard in the Senate Courts subcommittee! Thankfully we have a dedicated intern who was able to catch this on film or else it would appear online as if it had never occurred!

What the Family Foundation wants to know is this: is this a clerical error or is this an attempt to tamper with a pro-life bill that has seen unexpected success in the Senate? Pro-family advocates have seen numerous victories already this session, so is this an attempt to derail the train?

Earth to Newsweek & CNN: Wanna Beam Down & Have a Look Around the Planet?

2010-02-08T08:06:00.000-08:00

Jack Cashill is editor of a Kansas City business magazine, but also writes with considerable insight about politics. His book "What's the Matter with California" was incisive, and he may be onto something here, too: The reporting by our national media is so far off the mark that we can no longer attribute it to blind spots or inadvertent bias. It has crossed the threshold into fraud, sheer legerdemain. The national media appear to be corrupt.

But as a former small-market print newsman myself, let me suggest an alternative explanation in the case of Newsweek: I think it's possible the reporter just took the day off and made up quotes, defrauding not only her readers but her editors and her employer. She obviously didn't watch even 20 seconds of the march, and I don't think she talked to any police officer who would have said such a dumb thing, either. Seriously, Newsweek, you've been had.

LifeSiteNews.com
Group Exposes Media "Fraud" at March for Life
By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, DC (LifeSiteNews.com) - Anyone who attended the March for Life in the nation's capital January 22 - or was anywhere near Capitol Hill that day or the day before - was well aware of the size of the group that came to make its voice heard. District residents could only stand aside as the annual Starbucks-equipped army of young pro-life men and women descended upon the streets surrounding the Capitol. Hordes of March for Life participants filled sidewalks, and clogged crosswalks; while the noise of countless group leaders struggling to keep their contingents together competed with the din of colorfully-dressed gaggles of teenagers.

Such has come to be the late-January tradition in Washington. But from the news reports from the major networks and newspapers, one would never know it. The rest of the country was only shown misleading footage or pictures depicting the endless column of pro-lifers receding into the distance behind the looming presence of, at most, a couple dozen pro-abortion demonstrators.

Fed up with what they call the "mind-boggling corruption" of media coverage of the march, a small production team has released a YouTube video revealing the truth about the enormous event and the skewed media reports that referenced it. The same group released a documentary last year entitled "Thine Eyes," which reveals the sheer size of the 2009 March for Life and the pro-life stories behind it.

"We had hoped to set the media straight, but we did not succeed," says narrator Jack Cashill. "Their performance in 2010 convinced us that the issue at hand is not ignorance or incompetence, not even bias, but outright fraud. "More than any other event, the march reveals the truly eye-popping, mind-boggling corruption of the mainstream media."

Cashill responds to two particularly egregious media misrepresentations: one by CNN anchorman Rick Sanchez, who strongly implied that the number of pro-life marchers and pro-abortion demonstrators at the event were comparable. "Well Rick, we counted at least 300,000 pro-life marchers to 5 pro-choice protestors. In the real world, that qualifies as most," says Cashill.

[Note: I marched toward the end of the procession, and I think I saw 3-4 pro-abortion demonstrators. They were preppy, normal-looking women, and one effeminate young man. They were subdued, not raucous, and they stood at a distance from the marchers. I suspect they were doing it for extra credit in a freshman Women's Studies class. One held a sign that said "keep your Rosaries off my ovaries." How profound.

Near the end of the route, in front of the Supreme Court, there were not more than 10 of them. I heard there had been perhaps 100 earlier. These were older, shabbier and appeared to be old-school traumatized feminist man-haters, plus one sexually ambiguous man in his 50s with a condescending manner and a slight lisp, who struck me as a suburban Unitarian, perhaps a grantwriter or a liaison officer of some kind. I think most of us will always remember Rick Sanchez for his feigned uncertainty whether there were more pro-abortion (105, tops) or more anti-abortion (300,000 minimum) marching. I don't know how we can ever look him in the eye again without stifling a chuckle. B.James Stinson]

The video also skewers a Newsweek article by Krista Gesaman, in which she claimed that young women were "missing" from the March for Life 2010. Gesaman's article quoted a Washington police officer who said, in the reporter's words, that "a majority of the participants are in their 60s and were the original pioneers either for or against the case."

The YouTube video responds with copious imagery documenting the large percentage of youth at the March, a great deal of whom were women. "Pro-lifers will not soon be too old to stage an actual march, do not worry. In truth, young women of every race, color and creed are the single largest demographic in any march. They number in the scores of thousands," Cashill notes.

"The media will have only themselves to blame if next year the marchers come back to Washington, not just in record numbers, but in righteous anger."

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
CNN Gaffe: Anchor Wonders on Air Whether More Pro-Lifers or Pro-Aborts at March for Life
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012806.html

Teary Mayor Throws in Towel, Wants to Redefine California Marriage From Now On to Accommodate Lesbian Daughter

2010-02-07T21:07:00.000-08:00

Is this man an absolute imbecile, or have his handlers contrived this sappy theatrical display for Hilltop consumption? Is this going to be his springboard to run for governor of California, or to get his own reality show? It appears that California public service doesn't exactly attract the cream of the crop these days.

LOS ANGELES TIMES

San Diego mayor testifies about his reversal on gay marriage
The Republican former police chief tells the court in the Proposition 8 trial that his former opposition was based on prejudice.
By Maura Dolan

Reporting from San Francisco - After days of anti-Proposition 8 witnesses being described as liberal and activist, challengers of California's gay marriage ban elicited testimony Tuesday from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican and the city's former police chief, who said his previous opposition to same-sex marriage stemmed from prejudice.

At the federal trial over Proposition 8, Sanders told the court that when his elder daughter, Lisa, now 26, was in college, she told him she was a lesbian. He said he expressed his "overwhelming love" for her but also had concerns she would face discrimination.

When he ran for mayor in 2005, Sanders said, he opposed same-sex marriage in favor of civil unions. Lisa worked in his campaign, wanted him to win and did not try to talk him out of his position, he said.

In 2007, the San Diego City Council passed a resolution calling on San Diego to file a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of San Francisco's effort to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage. Sanders said he intended to veto the measure and called together gay friends and neighbors to explain why. "I was absolutely shocked at the depth of the hurt, the depth of the feeling," he testified.

Lawyers for the challengers of Proposition 8 played a video of Sanders crying as he told a news conference the next day that he had changed his mind about marriage for gays. Sanders testified that he was emotional because he had come so close to sending a message that gay relationships were inferior to those between heterosexuals. "What hit me was that I had been prejudiced," he said.

During cross-examination, an attorney defending Proposition 8 asked whether Sanders' previous opposition to same-sex marriage stemmed from an animus against or moral disapproval of gays. Sanders said it had not, but "it doesn't mean that I don't believe it was grounded in prejudice."

Copyright (c) 2010, The Los Angeles Times

The Church Militant in a Time of Compromise and Depravity

2010-02-03T20:07:00.000-08:00

If you've given up on this generation of Catholic youth, if you think that the militant Church of Lech Walensa and Josef Mindzhenty is in the rear-view mirror, have a look at the TFP Student Action website and follow some of the links. I wrote a friend recently that this is robust Catholicism with some bass in its voice. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/

The youngsters have vowed to confront depravity and apostasy in the street and on the Catholic campus alike, to restore the values of Christian civilization. "Youth was made not for pleasure, but for heroism," they exhort their boys at Chivalry Camp.

Their full name is the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. The TFP was founded to "resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property."

It has a full-time volunteer staff of 75, and claims 120,000 members. I'm not Catholic, but I'm profoundly encouraged by this movement during a dark time in our country. They look like a cavalry regiment cresting the ridge, in the nick of time.

Persons, Not Property: Hoye Writes That Personhood Triumphed Over Slavery, Must and Will Prevail Against Abortion

2010-01-31T23:43:00.000-08:00

Pastor Walter Hoye blogged in November about the power of dehumanizing language as it was applied historically to Black slaves, and as it is currently applied to unborn people, many of whom also are Black. In both cases, the victim is stripped of personhood in order to accomodate oppression. And yet, he observed with Martin Luther King, Jr., “right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.” Hoye writes that personhood will have the "final word."

Persons Not Property

By 1830 slavery was primarily located in the Southern United States of America and it existed in many different forms. African Americans were enslaved on small farms, large plantations, in cities and towns, inside homes, out in the fields, and in industry and transportation.

By 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, Historian James L. Huston emphasizes the role of slavery as an economic institution. Huston, a leading advocate of secession, placed the value of southern held slaves at $2.8 billion. At about $3 billion in 1860 currency, the economic value of slaves in the U.S. was more than the combined value of all the factories, railroads and banks in the country or about $12 trillion in U.S. dollars today.

Much of the North’s economic prosperity derived from what Abraham Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, called “the bondman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil.” President Lincoln was asking Americans to consider the obligations created by slavery. The first of those obligations is to acknowledge the full truth.

The Full Truth

The full truth is African American Slaves were considered property, and they were property because they were black. Their status as property was enforced by violence and by public policy. Slaves throughout the South had to live under a set of laws called the Slave Codes. The codes varied slightly from state to state, but the basic idea was the same: the slaves were considered property, not people, and were treated as such. The killing of a slave was almost never regarded as murder, and the rape of slave women was treated as a form of trespassing. So intolerable were the conditions under which African Americans slaves suffered from day to day that some went as far as committing suicide or mutilating themselves to ruin their property value.

As an African America, I have asked myself these questions:

1. How could this be justified?
2. Was it not obvious that African Americans were persons, living, breathing human beings?
3. Where was the outrage from the American public?

The Language of Oppression Past

Haig Bosmajian, UW professor of speech communication says. “While names, words, and language can be, and are, used to inspire us, to motivate us to humane acts, to liberate us, they can also be used to dehumanize human beings and to ‘justify’ their suppression and even their extermination.”

In order to justify the inhumane treatment of African American slaves and soothe the conscious of the Americans, dehumanizing terminology or the “language of oppression” was established and propagated by way of both “academic” and “legal” opinion at the very highest levels of our educational and legal communities.

From 1815 to 1830, the American Colonization Society: “Free black in our country are … a contagion.”

In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court decided: “A negro of the African race was regarded … as an article of property … a subordinate and inferior class of being.”

In 1858, the Virginia Supreme Court decision declared: “In the eyes of the law … the slave is not a person.”

In 1867, Buckner Payne, Publisher: “The Negro is not a human being.”

In 1900, Professor Charles Carroll: “The negro is … one of the lower animals.”

In 1903 Dr. William English: “The negro race is … a heritage of organic and psychic debris.”

In 1909, Dr. E. T. Brady: “They [Negroes] are parasites.”

The Language of Oppression Present

Today, even while modern medical science clearly and overwhelmingly supports the humanity and personhood of the pre-born child, the same financial motives and oppressive language strategies that were used to oppress African American slaves are being used, right now, to justify killing pre-born children.

For example, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided: “The Fetus, at most, represent only the potentiality of life.” Again, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared: “The word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn.”

In 1979 Professor Joseph Flectcher: “Pregnancy when not wanted is a disease … in fact, a venereal disease.” In 1980 Dr. Mariti Kekomaki: “An aborted baby is just garbage … just refuse.”

In 1984, Professor Rosalind Pollack Petchesky: “The Fetus is a parasite.” Again, in 1984, Rabbi Wolfe: “A fetus is not a human being.”

In 1985, Dr. Hart Peterson on fetal movement: “Like … a primitive animal that’s poked with a stick.”

In 1986, Attorney Lori Andrews: “People’s body parts [embryos] are their personal property.”

This year, in the Sunday, July 12th, 2009, edition of the New York Times Magazine, the power of the language of oppression to corrupt our conscious was revealed in the words of sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said in an interview that she was surprised at a 1980 court ruling that prevented the restoration of Medicaid funding for abortions, because, in her opinion, when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Entirely Indefensible

History teaches us, time and time again, that the use of oppressive language to demonize and dehumanize certain segments of the human race is incontestably evil.

In Germany, the persistent portrayal of the Jews as “vermin,” “bacilli,” “parasites,” and “disease” contributed to Adolf Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

In the antebellum South, the deliberate and systematic labeling of African Americans as “chattel,” “property,” “beasts,” “feebleminded,” and “useless eaters,” eased the conscious of many and paved the way for the subjugation and suppression of African Americans.

From the East coast to the West coast the defining of the American Indian as “non-persons,” “savages,” and “Satan’s partisans” led to the extermination of a significant portion of the American Indian population.

Yet, today, it appears we have not learned our lesson.

Just as the Jewish holocaust in Germany, the African American slavery in the antebellum south, and the death of countless American Indians were despicable events in our human history that were accompanied by the use of dehumanizing language, so today is the deliberate dismemberment and destruction of the bodies of those most vulnerable among us, among the human race, that is to say the pre-born child, entirely indefensible.

Persons Are Not Property

Human beings are persons and persons are not property. As a civil society we must move beyond the loathsome language of oppression of powerful elite and recognize the inherent, inalienable and self-evident humanity of all human beings. Regardless of the means by which we were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability, all human beings need to be and deserve to be protected by love and by law.

The Unarmed Truth

When Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10th, 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: “I believe that ‘unarmed truth’ and ‘unconditional love’ will have the final word in reality. This is why “right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil” triumphant.”

Today, the “unarmed truth” is that the pre-born child is a person not property.

I believe personhood is God-given and not government-granted. It is not offered to the elite and denied to the “least of these.”

I believe personhood, addresses the most important RIGHT of all - the RIGHT to LIVE, without which all other rights are meaningless.

I believe personhood is RIGHT.

The “unconditional love” for the pre-born child in my heart, is rooted in the love Christ has for all. While the current conditions may have “temporarily defeated” the personhood of the pre-born child.

I believe the “righteousness of personhood” is stronger than the “evil of pre-natal murder” and will ultimately prove triumphant.

I believe personhood is the final word in reality of the pro-life movement.

Pastor Walter Hoye Denounces Racial Suicide, "Womb Lynching," and Passive, Inert African-American Church

2010-01-31T23:09:00.000-08:00

California anti-abortion stalwart Walter Hoye blogged for Issues 4 Life Foundation last summer on "why African-Americans accept abortion." He finds that the Black church has failed to confront what he calls "womb lynching," and that today, as a result, a conceived African-American child has less than a 50% chance of being born: every 72 seconds an African-American baby’s life is terminated by abortion. At this rate, Hoye writes, the African-American race will be in danger of extinction by the the end of this century.

Why African-Americans Accept Abortion

The acceptance of abortion by African-Americans is one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century.

Abortion is nothing new and the reasons for it can be found rooted in the Church’s failure to consistently and effectively demonstrate the love of Christ in the terms of James 1:27.

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

Until the quality of life for women is improved by the practical applications of unconditional love, many woman will continue to be attracted to the false sense security abortion provides.

Abortion is not just another surgical or medical procedure that is hygienic and safe.

Abortion is an intrinsically evil act that gravely violates the dignity of an innocent human being by taking his or her life.

Abortion gravely wounds the dignity of those who support it and leaves those who commit it in profound psychological and moral trauma.

Marginalizing abortion marginalizes the sanctity of human life itself and dehumanizes the members of any society.

The freedom, independence, empowerment and sense of security promised women by abortion is a lie.

Can equality for women be achieved at the expense of murdering their children?

Of course not.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.”

Abortion is oxymoronic, a “cruel kindness” if you will.

Abortion is the lie that promises to improve the “quality of life” at the “expense of life”.

Embracing abortion as a necessary social policy to guarantee life would ultimately result in the end of life.

Given that according to the 2006 U.S. Census the African-American community is no longer replacing itself.

The acceptance of abortion in the African-American community is a form of racial suicide.

During the Civil Rights movement African-American’s were willing to be hosed down by Fire Departments, bitten by dogs, beaten by police officers, unjustly incarcerated, financially ruined and lynched by racist white folk to secure access to water fountains, restrooms and seats in the front of the bus.

I believe most of us would assume that African-American’s would do more for their posterity than they would for the right to use a urinal.

However, if you assume this to be true you’d be wrong.

Today an African-American child has less than a 50% chance of being born.

Every 72 seconds an African-American baby’s life is terminated by abortion.

At this rate, the African-American race will be in danger of extinction by the year of our Lord two thousand one hundred (2100).

All this and African-American Pastors are strangely silent regarding the issue of abortion.

I wonder why?

Such silence allows the African-American Pastors to trivialize abortion by equating the killing of babies with other evils in the world when the numbers from pro-abortion communities clearly prove there is no comparison.

Such silence allows the African-American Pastors to politicize abortion by comparing Democrats to Republicans as if winning such a contest will bring our dead babies back to life.

For the record, since 1973 abortion alone, accounts for over fifty (50) million prenatal murders.

According to Father Frank Pavone’s June 11th, 2009 Blog entitled “One Solitary Child” …

“Worldwide, there are 42 million abortions every year.

That means that in the last thirty years, there have been over 1.5 billion abortions! 1.5 billion!

That’s the equivalent of approximately one quarter of the entire population of the planet!

One quarter of the earth’s population, murdered, snuffed out, gone.”

Such silence from the African-American pulpit allows Pastors to avoid wrestling with their congregation over two (2) potentially Church splitting and/or job threatening issues:

1. The biblical truth about abortion and

2. Why they support a President who does not publicly support the biblical truth about abortion and other biblically defined evils.

In my opinion, such silence from men called and ordained by God Himself to preach an uncompromising gospel at all cost, is just inexcusable.

Again, such silence from the African-American pulpit allows the race card to be played in the Black Church and the discussion to be moved from murdering children to whether or not abortion is a Civil Rights issue.

Yes, much has changed since the Civil Rights movement.

Segregation is illegal in all public schools and most private places.

While discrimination still exists in many hearts today, our country has come closer to the ideals of liberty and justice.

Still, why does it appear that African-Americans are more than willing to sacrifice their posterity for prosperity?

To put it bluntly, it appears…

The more affluent African-Americans have become, the fewer children we want.

The higher our material expectations rise, the more we perceive children prevent us from achieving them.

The more affluent African-Americans have become, the less inclined we are to take risks which might destroy our quality of life.

The more affluent African-Americans have become, the more we tend to only associate with the rich and identify with their lifestyle.

Thus, in a divided society like the United States of America, affluence creates materially comfortable prisons, emotionally isolated people and morally bankrupt protocols.

The Bible puts it this way in 1st Timothy 6:10:

“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

1st John 3:8 teaches us that “… the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the work of the devil.”

Since torturing babies to death is incontestably the work of the devil, abortion is incontrovertibly evil and the benefits abortion promises are ALL lies.

Still, why can’t African-Americans see this?

Oh we can see it.

There is no doubt that “momma is pregnant with child”.

There is no question that a baby, an innocent human being is murdered every time an abortion takes place.

The biological evidence is overwhelmingly clear.

Human biology has been incredibly revealing.

The biological evidence for the humanity of the unborn child is undeniable, and even advocates of abortion rights now admit this.

Abortion is simply prenatal murder.

In light of Planned Parenthood’s founder’s (i.e. Margaret Sanger) racist and eugenic past, abortion is no less than womb lynching.

The facts are in now and it is painfully obvious who the baby is and what abortion does to him or her.

Oh I can assure you, African-Americans can and do see this.

So why is there such a difference between what we as African-Americans know to be true in our hearts and how we vote?

How can African-Americans consider themselves more religious than the U.S. population as a whole and support the shedding of innocent blood?

Read Proverbs 6:16-17 …

“These six (6) things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven (7) are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.”

St. Francis of Assisi once said “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”

In other words, it is time for the Church to speak the truth in love by meeting both the physical and spiritual needs of people.

I believe the answer is not in the White House, but in the church house.

I believe when the Church becomes relevant in the lives of the people …

The Word of God will once again be relevant in the hearts of the people …

And when the Word of God is relevant in the hearts of the people …

I believe abortion, anywhere and everywhere this evil exists, will come to an end.

So join me and let’s go to work.

Roe v. Wade NOT the 'Settled Law' of the Land, Despite Arlen Specter's Confusion

2010-01-28T14:55:00.000-08:00

Old-school activists from the Operation Rescue era have ratcheted up their resistance to abortion recently, this time under the banner of the Personhood movement. (http://www.personhoodamendments.com/intro/index.php)

Former Rescuers Cal Zastrow and Chet Gallagher are at the forefront of the movement to enact state Constitutional amendments, which had gone dormant under National Right to Life's leadership.

On the U.S. Supreme Court, even Antonin Scalia has declared his hostility to a federal Personhood statute because he believes the issue properly belongs with the states. Now, activists like Zastrow and Gallagher are petitioning states to put Constitutional Personhood amendments on the ballot where permitted, and elsewhere they are urging state legislators to take up the Personhood issue.

In this article that prolife activist Mary King wrote for a Montana newspaper, she outlines a strategy to "end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it." That strikes me as wildly optimistic, but I do think it's worth a try.

As much as the Personhood activists denounce the incrementalist strategy of the National Right to Life "establishment," I believe every increment is worth fighting for because the increments are comprised of real live babies. If the Personhood movement's successes turn out to be incremental, that is no reason to be dismissive. If they turn out to be as revolutionary as Mary King predicts, I'll be absolutely thrilled to guess wrong.

How pro-lifers can overturn Roe v. Wade
By Mary King

In this month in 1973, the Supreme Court declared open season on unborn babies when they infamously invented a "right" to abortion in their Roe v. Wade decision, making null and void laws protecting the unborn in all 50 states.

In the 37 years since, black-robed despots have devalued the worth of life by systematically defending the slaughter of more than 51 million babies whose only crime was to have been "inconvenient." While this judicial activism has been tenaciously resisted by tens of thousands of pro-life activists in every state, the Congress and state legislatures have so far only whittled away at the margins by passing laws that slightly regulate abortion in the most egregious cases.

Yet the time to bow before the Supreme Court is over. It is time to really defend the defenseless and end abortion-on-demand entirely.

One such bill — a Life at Conception Act — would do just that.

By legislatively establishing the personhood of the unborn, this bill would actually eliminate judicially imposed abortion-on-demand.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.

When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade, it was based on the new, and previously undefined, "right to privacy" it "discovered" in the so-called "penumbrae" of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court left the door open for lawmakers to protect life when it stated in its opinion that the Court "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." It admitted that "if the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [for an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment." That is exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

A Life at Conception Act changes the focus of the abortion debate. It takes the Supreme Court out of the equation and places responsibility solely on the shoulders of the elected representatives who, unlike life term judges, must respond to grass-roots pressure.

And the grass-roots pressure of pro-lifers has led to ever-increasing support in Congress.

The Life at Conception Act has attracted growing record numbers of co-sponsors in each of the last four Congresses.

And much to the chagrin of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Life at Conception Act in the current 111th Congress — S. 346 by Sen. Roger Wicker, R- Miss., and H.R. 881 by Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif. — are again on track to achieve new record support.

The politicians had better take heed.

Even if a Life at Conception Act doesn't pass immediately, the public attention will send another crew of radical abortionists down to defeat in the next election.

I can think of no more fitting way to celebrate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade than to prepare for its demise.

— Mary King is executive director of the National Pro-Life Alliance, 4521 Windsor Arms Court, Annandale, VA 22003.

Cascading Tragedy in the Catholic Church

2010-01-26T16:27:00.001-08:00

This is how tragedy can and eventually will cascade out of unbelief: first, secular media and popular culture persuade Catholic schoolboys that happiness lies in self-indulgent materialism and sensuality. Then, the Church suffers a "crisis of vocations" (not enough volunteers for the priesthood).

Then the Church lowers its standards and enlists manifestly depraved candidates who in earlier generations would never have been considered suitable for the priesthood. Then the predators, clothed in the garments of the Church, act out their lusts on the powerless and the vulnerable. And when - in the fulness of time - the victims roar, it is not the spent perverts who pay the piper, but the Body of Christ.

The immense Diocese of Fairbanks, Alaska, where I lived for four winters, is no longer under the direction of its bishop, but of a federal bankruptcy judge and various attorneys who represent 258 Alaskans who were sexually abused in the 1960s and 1970s.

The terms of the bankruptcy plan require the Church to deposit $9.8 million in a fund for the victims, and to pay another $2.5 million to lawyers who have filed over 100 sexual abuse lawsuits, and to accountants and other professionals involved in the litigation.

According to this Anchorage Daily News story, the Bishop has been put on a $1,400 monthly allowance in high-priced Fairbanks. He has laid off 25 percent of the Diocesan staff, cut pay to the remaining employees, some of whom have taken unpaid furloughs. The parishes have to contribute $650,000 to the settlement, and the Diocese has eliminated fuel subsidies to its outlying rural parishes. The next time somebody tells you that "tolerance" is a virtue, ask them to be more specific.

DIOCESE WILL PAY $9.8 MILLION TO ALASKA ABUSE VICTIMS
Bankruptcy: Freed money will go to victims, outing of guilty.
By LISA DEMER, Anchorage Daily News

The Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks is emerging from bankruptcy under a plan that will provide nearly $10 million - and maybe much more - to sexual abuse victims, send the bishop traveling to parishes where abuse occurred, and put names of suspected abusers on the Diocese website.

Under the plan for reorganization, $9.8 million will go into a fund for close to 300 victims. Another $2.5 million is going to lawyers, accountants and other professionals. Payments to individuals will be decided case-by-case by a mediator, depending on a variety of factors including the nature and severity of abuse, the age of the victim at the time it started, and whether the perpetrator was in a position of trust.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Donald MacDonald approved the plan at a hearing Monday morning in Anchorage.

"I've never had a case like this in my nearly 20 years on the bench," the judge told the lawyers and Catholic church leaders gathered in court. The sexual abuse claims made this bankruptcy especially challenging, he said.

The diocese filed for reorganization in March 2008 in the wake of more than 100 state-court lawsuits accusing priests and volunteers of sexual abuse. After the bankruptcy case was filed, the claims grew. Many arise from abuse decades ago.

Most creditors supported the plan, including 256 out of 258 clergy sexual abuse victims who voted on it.

Exhibits filed in Bankruptcy Court name the suspected perpetrators, most from the Jesuit order. Under the settlement, for the next 10 years the diocese must post on its home page a link to the names of the suspected abusers "and any other known perpetrators (admitted, proven or credibly accused), including deceased perpetrators."

One list filed in court names those whom multiple people accused of sexual abuse: 15 priests, a deacon, two brothers, two nuns, and two volunteers. They include the late church volunteer Joseph Lundowski, accused of molesting dozens of children in Western Alaska villages in the 1960s and 1970s. A second list names those accused by one person: 11 priests, five nuns, a deacon, a brother and three volunteers.

Bishop Donald Kettler, who sat in at the hearing, said afterward that what happened to people victimized by priests and lay volunteers was tragic. He said the diocese has tried to start the process of healing but that he couldn't do much when the case was in court. Now, he can reach out, and in fact must do so, under the reorganization plan.

He said he would try to connect with every victim and will travel to every place where the abuse occurred.

"I will be visiting their villages. I will invite them to come see me one-on-one. I will invite them to come to some church and community healing services. And I will have listening sessions with them and then the whole community," Kettler said.

Under the plan, he also must read a statement of apology from the pulpit in every affected parish.

The diocese pieced together money for the settlement mainly from the sale of properties to its own endowment. The diocese will still be able to use those properties, which include Catholic schools, the diocese offices, and the Kobuk Center, where the bishop lives. In addition, parishes are paying $650,000 and Alaska National Insurance Co. $1.4 million.

Kettler said operations of the vast diocese have been affected by the lawsuits and the bankruptcy. The diocese has cut subsidies to parishes for training, fuel oil and other basics, he said. The diocese staff has been reduced by 25 percent, and those left have taken pay cuts and unpaid furloughs. The bishops' pay is now just $1,400 a month, plus room and board, said Susan Boswell, the Tucson, Ariz.-based lead bankruptcy attorney for the diocese.

The victims also will pursue claims against two insurance companies that didn't pay into the settlement, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. and Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America. Ken Roosa, an Anchorage lawyer who has represented dozens of abuse victims in state lawsuits, said the size of the fund for victims could grow substantially.

"We're not done," he said.

Dutch Prosecuters Charge Legislator for Denouncing Islamization of His Country

2010-01-20T20:16:00.000-08:00

A Dutch nationalist legislator is being prosecuted for hate speech in his country at the urging of Muslim immigrants and their Dutch allies. Geert Wilders' Freedom Party is uneasy about an influx of Muslim immigrants into their country of 16 million, where Muslims make up six percent of the total population now.

"There are lots and lots of (Muslims) who are good people, decent, hardworking people — it's not about that," said a Dutch man who traveled from a northern province to rally with Freedom Party members against Wilders' prosecution. "It's about their numbers."

According to this AP report, Wilders' defense attorney moved for summary dismissal, and the judge will rule on this motion Feb. 3.

Dutch Anti-Islam Lawmaker Faces Hate Speech Trial

AMSTERDAM – Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders sat in the defendant's dock Wednesday, nodding his head as prosecutors read aloud a hundred remarks he has made condemning Islam, Muslims and immigrants — notably one comparing the Quran to Hitler's "Mein Kampf."

Wilders' criminal trial for allegedly inciting hate against Muslims has resonance across Europe: He is one of a dozen right-wing politicians on the continent who are testing the limits of freedom of speech while voicing voters' concerns at the growth of Islam.

The flamboyant bleach-blond politician has also called for taxing clothing commonly worn by Muslims, such as headscarves, because they "pollute" the Dutch landscape. He may be best known for the 2008 short film "Fitna," which offended Muslims around the world by juxtaposing Quranic verses with images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

"I know the words I use are sometimes hard, but they are never impetuous," he told judges Wednesday.

"I also do not intend to hurt people's feelings. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is diametrically opposed to freedom."

His lawyer said Wilders is innocent and asked for the charges to be dismissed. Failing that, he wishes to call 17 witnesses, including Mohammed Bouyeri — the Dutch-born Muslim radical serving a sentence of life in prison for the brutal 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh had also incurred Muslim ire for a documentary criticizing Islam, and Wilders has lived under constant police protection since his killing.

Judges will rule on a move for summary dismissal Feb. 3, with the prosecution's opening statements in March if the case proceeds.

Around 200 Wilders supporters demonstrated outside the court, many carrying signs saying "Stop the Islamization of Europe."

"There are lots and lots of them (Muslims) who are good people, decent, hardworking people — it's not about that," said Jeroen Korthuis, who traveled from the northern province of Friesland to attend the protest. "It's about their numbers."

Muslims, mostly from Morocco and Turkey, make up about six percent of the Dutch population of 16 million after a wave of immigration in the 1980s and 1990s.

"We're afraid that it will be too much. Too much immigration in too little time, in too small a country," Korthuis said.

"As more and more come here, they will influence your society: beliefs, church, justice system — everything."

Immigration-related issues have dominated politics in the Netherlands and much of Europe over the past decade. Wilders has drawn comparisons with populists such as Jorg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France as he cashed in on the growing unease. His Freedom Party now rivals the Netherlands' largest, although it has not yet won a place in any governing coalition.

Publicity resulting from previous attempts to stop him from promoting his views — such as the refusal of Dutch television to air "Fitna" and a travel ban imposed by the government of Britain — has only increased his popularity. Many observers expect his trial to have the same effect.

If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of two years in prison, though a fine of up to euro18,500 ($26,800) is more likely. He could theoretically keep his seat in parliament.

While Wilders supporters see the trial as an attack on of freedom of expression, immigrant groups see it as a test of whether the Dutch government is willing to support minority rights, including freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination — guaranteed in the first words of the Dutch constitution.

Anti-racism groups have long sought Wilders' prosecution, saying his remarks go beyond being offensive and compound ethnic tensions in the Netherlands, a country once regarded a beacon of tolerance.

"Racist incidents in the workplace are rising, and the labor unions say that too," said Rene Danen of Nederland Bekent Kleur — Dutch for "The Netherlands Shows Its Colors." The group was one of several that filed a formal complaint against Wilders. "One in three Muslims here now say they are considering leaving."

He said Wilders' remarks clearly violate hate speech laws and his case is no different from many other discrimination suits filed each year.

Sadik Harchaoui, the head of Forum, an institute that promotes integration, said he didn't see any positive outcome to the case.

"Whatever the verdict may be, it's going to be another element in polarization," he said.

___

Associated Press reporter Mike Corder contributed to this story from The Hague.

Judge Recuses Herself from Trial of Her Husband's Pro-Life Antagonists

2010-01-19T00:08:00.000-08:00

The apostasy at Notre Dame is unmistakable when a virulent pro-abortion politician is invited as guest of honor, pro-life demonstrators are arrested en masse, and pro-abortion demonstrators are welcomed to campus, unmolested by police.

That it took the obviously compromised judge, Jenny Pitts Manier, so long to recuse herself suggests a claustrophobic insiders' game reminiscent of "In the Heat of the Night." Was she actually so obtuse that she didn't recognize her bias, or did she just think nobody would notice, or that nobody would dare press the issue? She gives Hoosiers a bad name. (OK, Hoosiers Charles Manson and Jim Jones were worse than her, but she's an embarrassment.)

Judge Bows Out of Pro-Life Case
by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

Almost 90 pro-lifers were arrested at Notre Dame last year while demonstrating against President Obama's graduation speech in South Bend, Indiana. Tom Brechja of the Thomas More Society in Chicago tells OneNewsNow that attorneys Tom Dixon and Dave Wemhoff asked Judge Jenny Pitts Manier to step down "because she was biased."

"Her husband is a tenured professor of philosophy, who not only works for Notre Dame and therefore has a financial interest, but he's also a very outspoken critic of the Catholic Church teaching on the sanctity of life, which of course is exactly what protesters were speaking out in favor of," Brechja notes.

The judge rejected the argument then withdrew from the case shortly after an appeal was filed. The cases will be reassigned to another judge, and Brechja is hopeful that the head of the school, John Jenkins, will ask the county prosecutor to drop the charges against the pro-lifers.

"These are people from all over the country, including Alan Keyes, Norma McCorvey -- a lot of very, very good people," he regards.

At the same time, pro-abortion forces were permitted on Notre Dame property to demonstrate for Obama and for abortion. None were arrested.

6th Circuit Overturns Rogue ACLU Judge's Injunction Against Courthouse Display of Ten Commandments

2010-01-18T16:05:00.000-08:00

The federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have a problem with frisky federal district judges flouting its precedents, not unlike the segregationist district judges who defied Brown v. Board of Education for more than a decade.

Although the 6th Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) held in 2005 that it is Constitutionally permissible to display the Ten Commandments on public premises, a district judge entered the American Civil Liberties Union's requested order to permanently enjoin Grayson County from displaying the Ten Commandments on the second floor of its courthouse.

The ACLU is on a losing streak with these cases, according to Liberty Counsel's Matthew Staver, and it has never requested certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the matter. Why not? Staver suggests they know they would lose, and that precedent would then be binding nationwide.

There is something else at work here: the ACLU is bringing its suits against cash-strapped rural counties that can't afford to pay buttoned-down Constitutional litigators to fight these guerrilla wars against the ACLU, which is larglely staffed by "volunteer" attorneys from large law firms that discharge their pro bono obligations by dispatching its associates to the ACLU.

To meet the bar association's pro bono obligation by sending your underlings to the ACLU to haze some earnest but underfunded rural Christians is a pretty nauseating example of "malicious compliance," don't you think? Congratulations, Dewey,Stickham & Howe, you're really "giving back." I guess acting as guardian ad litem for a foster child just wouldn't give quite the adrenaline rush you're looking for. Oh, and no headlines. You wouldn't want to waste your associates on THAT kind of pro bono.

This particular case had a happy ending, but the ACLU almost certainly intimidates at least a dozen small, precarious county governments for every Grayson or Mercer County that gets on the horn to nonprofit defenders like Staver or Jay Sekulow. This is the same strategy the ACLU uses to suppress Christian speech at sporting events and graduation ceremonies. If anybody fights them all the way through the federal courts, the ACLU & similar totalitarians have a losing case. But most people don't want to fight, or they don't know they can fight, so they just fold. This is the genius of the ACLU.

Display with Ten Commandments Ruled Constitutional by Court of Appeals

(LifeSiteNews.com) - On Thursday the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a display including the Ten Commandments in Leitchfield, KY, on the second floor of Grayson County's courthouse.

The display, entitled "Foundations of American Law and Government," includes the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, Star-Spangled Banner, National Motto, and a picture of Lady Justice, with an explanation of the significance of each. The display is intended to showcase a sampling of documents that played a significant role in the development of the legal and governmental system of the United States.

The majority wrote in their decision that they found that "the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that Grayson County acted with an impermissible purpose or that the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the Foundations Display has the impermissible effect of endorsing religion."

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented the winning oral argument on behalf of Grayson County in April 2009. The case began in 2002 when the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Grayson County, and a federal judge ruled against the display.

In 2005, the same Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the same Ten Commandments display in Mercer County, KY. The Sixth Circuit governs Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan. Notwithstanding this identical and controlling precedent, the federal judge entered a permanent injunction against the Grayson County display. Thursday's decision, however, reversed and upheld the display.

"The Ten Commandments are as much at home in a display about the foundation of law as stars and stripes are to the American flag," said Staver. "The Ten Commandments are part of the fabric of our country and helped shape the law.

"It defies common sense to remove a recognized symbol of law from a court of law. The ACLU might not like our history and might run from it, but the fact remains that the Ten Commandments shaped our laws and may be displayed in a court of law."
Staver said that he doesn't believe the ACLU will ask the Supreme Court to review the case. "The ACLU has been running from the Supreme Court since 2005," he said, "and has taken loss after loss on the Ten Commandments."

Since 2005, when Staver argued in favor of the same Foundations Display for McCreary and Pulaski Counties, four federal courts of appeal have upheld the Ten Commandments. Three of these four involve the same Foundations Display. Since 2005, every federal court of appeals which has addressed Ten Commandments displays has upheld them. The ACLU has not won a Ten Commandments case at the court of appeals level since 2005.

D.C. Residents Unfit to Vote on Gay Marriage?

2010-01-17T23:31:00.000-08:00

How ironic that the District of Columbia license plates carry a slogan about the sovereignty that is denied the District - "no taxation without representation" - but its own officials, including Judge Judith Malacuso, seem bound and determined to strip the people of their sovereignty.

Radical activist Judge says, D.C. homosexual 'marriage' vote would violate Human Rights Act

By Michael B. Farrell, The Christian Science Monitor

Thirty-one states have held referendums on whether or not to ban gay marriage, but a Washington, D.C., judge ruled Thursday that such a vote would violate the District's Human Rights Act.

The ruling upholds a decision by the city's board of elections, which has twice rejected plans by an anti-gay marriage group to hold a referendum on the subject. City council passed an ordinance in December that allowed gay marriage in the District.

Opponents of gay marriage say they will appeal the decision to the D.C. Court of Appeals. The decision fits a pattern of judicial activism, which has interfered with the people's will to ban gay marriage, they say.

For gay-marriage advocates, however, the decision is a significant victory. n all 31 states where gay marriage has been put before voters in a referendum, it has lost. If the judge's decision stands, it removes this hurdle for the District. What's in a Human rights Act?

The question of whether voters can overturn gay-marriage laws is central to the federal trial underway in San Francisco. Two same-sex couples are challenging Proposition 8, a voter initiative that trumped the state Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex marriages were legal in the state. The trial, regardless of the final ruling, is expected to be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Had gay-marriage opponents been able to hold a Prop. 8-style referendum in D.C., Washington would likely have followed the national trend and banned same-sex marriage, says Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay marriage group.

Washington is a majority African-American city, and only 26 percent of blacks nationwide support legalized gay marriage, according to an August Pew Research Center survey.

Thursday's ruling centers on Washington's Human Rights Act. The law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But many states, including California, Maine, and Wisconsin, have had referendums banning same-sex marriage - despite the fact that they also have laws similar to Washington's.

Indeed, in the 1995 case, Dean v. the District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals decided that the city's Human Rights Act did not protect same-sex marriages. "We cannot conclude that the council ever intended to change the ordinary meaning of the word 'marriage' simply by enacting the Human Rights Act," the court ruled.

The judge's decision

But in Thursday's ruling, Judge Judith Macaluso said the ground has shifted.

"Since 1995, the [Washington City Council] has changed the landscape Dean surveyed. Indeed, all of the statutory provisions upon which Dean relied have been repealed or amended...," she wrote in her decision.

What's more, wrote Judge Macaluso, the city can prevent a referendum from going forward.

"The fact that the proposed initiative, if passed, would violate the Human Rights Act provides an independent basis for upholding the Board's decision: the initiative runs afoul of an implied exclusion barring provisions that violates the state's law," she ruled.

Mr. Brown of the National Organization for Marriage says there is growing support in Congress to invalidate the council's vote to allow same-sex marriage. But others doubt that enough Democrats will join the effort to overturn the District's gay marriage law.

Without action, the District could begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in March.

C The Christian Science Monitor.

Is It Offensive to Pray In Jesus Name?

2009-10-15T07:43:00.001-07:00

Coercive Secularism is on the march in several American institutions, including the military and the Virginia State Troopers. Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt is under attack by attorney Michael Weinstein and others for his explicitly Christian prayers. Klingenschmitt is worth "friending" on Facebook, and the Pray in Jesus' Name website is worth book-marking. If Christians leave Klingenschmitt to his fate while he's fighting our battles, we'll deserve what we get.
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt - The Pray In Jesus Name Project / Homepage

Shared via AddThis

California Governor Signs Harvey Milk Day for Public Schools

2009-10-14T18:08:00.001-07:00

How shameful that innocent little California schoolchildren are considered fair game for the Sodomite propaganda machine. Shame on Arnold Schwarzeneggar, RINO governor of California.

Flip-flopper governor signs 'Harvey Milk' bill (OneNewsNow.com)

Shared via AddThis

Walter Hoye at the Abortuary

2009-10-10T12:32:00.001-07:00

Although the text here is somewhat dated, the video is worth a look. You are always going to hear pro-abortion people accuse prolife "sidewalk counselors" of menacing or harassing the women seeking abortions. I've been to an awful lot of events outside abortuaries over the years, and I have yet to see that. But if somebody is willing to rip tiny defenseless children limb from limb, or to pour toxic saline into their eyes and mucous membranes, or to give the mothers muscle contraction medication in order to crush the babies to death, I guess we shouldn't be shocked that such a person might resort to fibbing. Just cut and paste this URL.

http://blog.inthepublicsquare.com/2009/07/17/walter-hoye.aspx

In California, Assisted Fertility Industry is No Place for Christian Conscience

2009-09-30T20:48:00.000-07:00

The coercive Sodomite State of California has brought two Christian physicians to heel, at last, following a California Supreme Court decision that Christian conscience is no excuse to refuse artificial insemination to a lesbian in a domestic relationship with another lesbian. Christian physicians Douglas Fenton and Christine Brody were obligated to indulge a homosexual woman who requested to be artificially impregnated in order to produce children that she and her lesbian companion would raise without a father.

This follows the pattern that has been so fruitful for coercive Sodomites: first seek tolerance, as objects of pity, then demand validation and approval and, finally, coerce active collaboration and punish any who decline to cooperate. Tolerance is just a transitional phase en route to the Sodomites' imposition of their will on every person they encounter.

Lesbian's suit over procedure is settled
By Greg Moran, Union-Tribune Staff Writer

A long-running lawsuit between an Oceanside lesbian couple and two doctors that pitted the civil rights of same-sex couples against religious freedom for physicians has been settled.

The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. It ends a lawsuit filed in 2001 by Guadalupe Benitez against Drs. Douglas Fenton and Christine Brody at North Coast Womens Care in Vista.

Benitez alleged that the doctors told her they would not inseminate her because their religious convictions — they are Christians — prohibited them from doing the procedure for a lesbian couple.

Benitez went to another doctor, got pregnant and had a child with her partner, Joanne Clark. The boy is now 7. The couple also have 4-year-old twins.
But she sued the doctors and clinic, arguing that the state's civil rights laws do not allow doctors to discriminate against patients based on their religious beliefs.

A state appeals court in San Diego ruled in 2006 in favor of the doctors. But in August 2008, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Benitez, saying that religious-liberty claims cannot excuse illegal discrimination.

Both the doctors and the couple released a joint statement in which the doctors said they were sorry that Benitez and Clark felt they were being treated differently because of their sexual orientation.

The doctors said they want “all of their patients, including those who are lesbian and gay, to feel welcome and accepted in their medical practice, and are committed to treating all of their patients with equal dignity and respect in the context of the highest quality of medical care.”

The doctors contended as the case went on that they declined to do the procedure because Benitez was unmarried — not because of her sexual orientation. But there was also evidence in the case early on that the doctors had acknowledged that they did not inseminate her because she is a lesbian.

Benitez said yesterday that she is pleased that the case is over. “It was a really hard thing to go through, but it was worth it because we have hopefully paved the way for other people, and made sure that this is not going to happen to someone else,” she said.

The lawyer for the doctors could not be reached for comment yesterday. Throughout the litigation, the physicians have declined to comment publicly on the case.
The state's civil rights law prohibits discrimination in businesses that cater to the public. The law does allow doctors to opt out of some kinds of medical procedures, such as abortion.

But if a physician does offer to do certain procedures, they must be made available to all, said Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal, an advocacy group for same-sex rights.
While the exact amount of the settlement is private, Pizer said it was enough so that the couple's children “will be able to have whatever type of education they want to have in the future.” The doctors did not admit any wrongdoing, she said.

Union-Tribune
Greg Moran: (619) 542-4586;

Pro-life Victory at Indian Supreme Court: Mentally Retarded Rape Victim Has Right to Refuse Abortion

2009-09-23T17:45:00.000-07:00

Regent University law professor Scott Pryor posted on his blog Pryor Thoughts today about an Indian Supreme Court judgment barring a compulsory abortion against the wishes of a mentally retarded 19-year-old woman. Pryor recently returned from India where he taught law under a Fulbright Scholarship.

A Mother's Rights Vindicated

On 4 September I posted about the Indian Supreme Court judgment barring the abortion of the unborn child against the wishes of a mentally retarded 19-year old: http://pryorthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/buck-v-bell-india-style.html. I have since read the court’s opinion and corresponded with Bedi Tanu, the appellant's advocate who has practiced law for only six years.

Along with her senior advocate, she argued the case to the High Court in Chandigarh but lost. Nevertheless, through the efforts of friends and colleagues in Delhi, an appeal was delivered to the home of the Chief Justice of India at 9:00 pm on Friday night, only hours before the abortion was scheduled to take place the next morning.

Ms. Tanu argued the case on Monday after which a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court issued a short written order indicating its decision in favor of life, which was followed by the lengthy written judgment the last month.

I can’t summarize the meaning of this case any better than in the words Bedi wrote to me:

Every life is very precious. We have to see the world of others from their eyes and not our eyes. This girl has her world. We are doing nothing for her. We have no right to interfere in her world. Her rape was and is a heinous offence. The offender is the rapist; the child is innocent. If the mother wants her child for any reason, we can’t question her motherhood instinct on the parameter of IQ analysis. The disabled may not express their desires so easily (though this girl expressed her's unequivocally) but that does not mean they have no wishes. Disability is more in our perception, in our bias, than in the world. Life for the disabled is difficult and now, when the law is recognizing their rights, we cannot allow our prejudice, our ignorance, our stereotyped approach, to come in the way of life of self-determination of the mentally disabled.

http://pryorthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/mothers-rights-vindicated.html#comment-form

Thought Police Deployed by P.C. British Left

2009-08-06T15:57:00.000-07:00

The steady, benign "bobby" of previous generations is giving way in the formerly free United Kingdom to a more Orwellian sort of intrusive ideological police model. Hilary White wrote last month about episodes of British police enforcing P.C. views against a teen schoolgirl, a 10-year-old boy and an elderly lady. I'm sure most British police officers are good people, but it sounds like the thoroughgoing disarmament of the British citizenry has emboldened the worst elements of the police there.

UK Police Increasingly Used to Enforce Political Correctness
14 year-old-student arrested and taken to police station after requesting move to class with students who speak English
By Hilary White

BRITAIN - A few days before his election as pope, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger denounced a growing "dictatorship of relativism." The pope's rhetorical device, however, is increasingly becoming the lived experience of ordinary Britons visited and questioned by police for publicly expressing politically or religiously "incorrect" views.

In October 2006, the Daily Mail reported that a 14-year-old school girl, Codie Stott, was arrested by police and detained in a cell for three hours after she asked to be moved into a group of students who spoke English in class. Stott was denounced to police for "racism" by her teachers at Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester.

Codie told police that she had been placed in a group of five students who would or could not discuss the class work in English. When she asked to be moved to another group with whom she could communicate, the teacher responded, "It's racist, you're going to get done by the police." A week after the incident she was taken to Swinton police station under arrest. Codie told the Daily Mail, "They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewelry, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken."

In May this year, a shopkeeper in Manchester was threatened with prosecution under the race hate statutes if she did not remove a number of soft toys that some consider racist in origin. Moira Pickering, 62, was told by police to get rid of her stock of traditional English dolls called "gollywogs". Gollywogs, based on a children's literary character created by Florence Kate Upton, have been a staple of British children's toys since the late 19th century.

Pickering told the Daily Mail, "I find sex shops offensive, I find cabbage patch dolls offensive, but I wouldn't report them. Golliwogs have been going for years and I've always sold them. They sell very well. People are far too politically correct they go over the top."

In early April this year, a father of a ten-year-old boy was astounded when two police officers arrived at his Cheshire home to question his son for calling another boy "gay" in an email.

"I could not believe what I was hearing," Alan Rawlinson, aged 41, told media. "They told me they considered it a very serious offence. I thought they were joking at first… [T]his just seemed a huge waste of resources for something so trivial. I am furious about what has happened, it just seems the politically correct brigade are taking over."

"If somebody had called the police about something like this in my day they would have laughed - they certainly wouldn't have sent two officers out. It is completely ridiculous."

Perhaps more ominously, accusations of direct interference by police with the electoral process for ideological reasons are starting to be heard in Britain.

The British National Party, a far right but completely legal political party, is preparing a package of evidence to present to the Electoral Commission alleging that this May, West Midlands police interfered in the Birmingham local election at the behest of opposition parties. The party alleges that the police cooperated with a campaign of intimidation when they visited and questioned each of the 400 people in the Birmingham ridings who signed nomination papers for BNP candidates.

The BNP, a nationalist party opposed to non-ethnically British immigration, has been at pains recently to shed its early association with white supremacists. But its opposition particularly to Muslim, African and Pakistani immigration, and its nationalist anti-EU position, has earned the BNP the status of most politically incorrect, and therefore most publicly vilified party in recent British history.

Some observers have said that the combination of racial tensions and violence springing from mass immigration in densely crowded areas, together with a growing police and media suppression of free speech have created fertile ground for the nationalist party that excludes non-racially British members and is known for its blunt and forceful condemnations of politically correct ideology.

This backlash may explain why the BNP took 20,000 to 30,000 votes in the Birmingham area, despite police questioning their supporters, arrests of BNP party volunteers and organised "anti-fascist" opposition. Last week the BNP moved into fourth place behind the three main parties in a Parliamentary by-election in Sedgefield, County Durham, the riding recently vacated by former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Canadian Judge Holds That Christian Public Official Must Provide Gay Rites

2009-08-06T14:49:00.000-07:00

Homosexuals and their allies are driving Christian conscience out of the public square, and Christians out of public service. There is unquestionably a great deal of synergy in this for coercive Sodomy, as it simultaneously removes existing obstacles to depravity and packs public institutions with willing soldiers for the next offensive campaign.

This summary of a recent Saskatchewan court decision comes from The Persecution & Prayer Alert, published by Voice of the Martyrs, Canada.

The Voice of the Martyrs, Canada
The Persecution & Prayer Alert
www.persecution.net

On July 23, Saskatchewan's Court of Queen's Bench Justice Janet McMurty
upheld the ruling of the province's Human Rights Tribunal that marriage
commissioner Orville Nichols did not have the right to refuse to marry a
same-sex couple in April 2004 on basis of his personal Christian beliefs.
(see www.persecution.net/ca-2008-06-25.htm) The tribunal had also ordered
Nichols to pay the complainant $2,500 in compensation.

Nichols had appealed the May 23 ruling, arguing that his religious beliefs
should be protected under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. McMurty
dismissed his argument, however, in her 39-page ruling dated July 17,
concluding that the Human Rights Tribunal was "correct in its finding that
the commission had established discrimination, and that accommodation of Mr.
Nichols' religious beliefs was not required." Nichols has 30 days to appeal
the decision. He has not indicated whether he will do so.

There is hope that the Saskatchewan government will introduce legislation
allowing marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex marriages for
religious reasons. The government has referred two versions of new
legislation containing a religious exemption to the Saskatchewan Court of
Appeal to rule on their constitutionality.

Monolithic Sodomy Retracts NYU Welcome Due to Unforgivable Decency, Morality

2009-07-28T15:46:00.000-07:00

Monolithic Sodomy scored another victory recently when it drove off an Asian scholar of civil rights and constitutionalism who had been invited to lecture at New York University. Anybody who believes that Big Sodomy is committed to tolerance and academic freedom has to account for incidents like this one, in which homosexuals and their allies in academia chased a meek foreign law professor out of the marketplace of ideas, for comments she offered while she was a member of her country's parliament.

Singapore Legal Scholar Cancels NYU Visit, Driven Off by Homosexuals & Their Allies

A Singaporean law professor has pulled out of a teaching stint at New York University after her traditional views triggered a backlash on campus.

Richard Revesz, dean of New York University's law school, says Thio Li-ann informed him she will not be teaching during the fall semester because of "controversy surrounding her views regarding homosexuality and gay rights.

"She explained that she was disappointed by what she called the 'atmosphere of hostility' by some members of our community towards her views and by the low enrollments in her classes," he said in a press release Friday.

Thio - a former member of Parliament and a current professor at the National University of Singapore, which has an exchange program with NYU - could not immediately be reached for comment.

The 41-year-old was due to teach courses on human rights law and constitutionalism in Asia at NYU during the fall semester starting in September. Singapore's Straits Times said NYU students were outraged after learning that Thio had said in a parliamentary debate in 2007 that repealing a colonial-era law making sex between men a criminal offense "would subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties." More than 800 members of the NYU community signed a petition against Thio after gay activists circulated copies of her speech, it said.

Revesz said he was not aware of the speech when NYU made the offer to Thio, and both courses have now been cancelled as a result of her pullout.

In Singapore, sex between men is still a criminal offense punishable by up to two years in prison, although it is rarely enforced.

British municipal council fires employee for saying "God Bless" to homeless woman

2009-07-24T12:06:00.000-07:00

A municipal council in the formerly free United Kingdom has fired an employee with 18 years' service for saying "God bless you" to a homeless woman with an incurable medical condition. This is the reality of Secular Humanist political correctness - it is not about tolerance or diversity. It is totalitarian in its ambitions, insensitive to suffering and utterly intolerant.

Wandsworth Council has sacked London Homelessness Prevention Officer after previously threatening "say 'God Bless' and we'll sack you"

A Homelessness Prevention officer with Wandsworth Council has been dismissed from work for encouraging a homeless woman with an incurable medical condition to look to God for help, after doctors told her they'd given up hope. Even the woman had said that she did not want him to lose his job.

Duke Amachree, aged 53 who has worked for the local authority for almost 18 years was suspended for discussing his faith with a client, and was told in an investigatory interview later that he should not raise the issue of religion at work. Not only was Amachree told it was inappropriate to 'ever talk about God', he was also told that he may not even say 'God bless'. Amachree, a member of the UK World Evangelism Church in London, was summoned to an interview as a result of a complaint made against him by a member of the public.

Michael Phillips, a solicitor working with the Christian Legal Centre, which was consulted by the worker, said: "Amachree met a client who was due to be moved out of her home because her landlord wished to sell the property. Doctors had told the client that she had an incurable illness and, as such, could only work part time. In general conversation, Amachree asked the lady why she believed her condition was incurable, and in encouragement, commented that sometimes doctors do not have all the answers. So concerned was he that the lady was in despair and without hope, he suggested she might try putting her trust in God. The lady, however, explained that she had tried religion and because she did not have any faith she was satisfied with what the doctors had told her and was able to move on. She smiled, thanked Amachree and left."

Two days later Amachree was handed a letter informing him that a service user (the lady) had made serious allegations against him and he was therefore suspended.

Phillips, who was present at the meeting today and on previous occasions, added: "Amachree's employers told him that 'God had to be kept out of the workplace'. He was accused of crossing boundaries. The issue of religion, according to the interviewer, should not be raised in a housing issue. I, on behalf of Mr. Amachree, queried this statement by asking if 'God bless' would be an appropriate comment. He was told that it would not be appropriate and that any complaint would again lead to an investigation. Today they have reached their verdict and carried out their threat of dismissing him. This is a clear manifestation of secular intolerance."

Amachree will take his employers to an Employment Tribunal. His claim is that their decision effectively 'privatises' Christian faith and is against his human rights. His case comes after a number of public sector workers have seen their employers forcing secularist views on them . The Christian Legal Centre, and its legal team has supported Caroline Petrie, the nurse who was suspended for offering to pray for a patient, a Christian magistrate forced to resign over his reluctance to place children into the care of homosexual couples; a Police Officer sacked for using the internal email system to respond to blatant pro-gay advertising in his force, and a myriad of cases where Christian foster parents have been refused the opportunity to care for children on the grounds of their faith and practice. CLC has instructed leading Human Rights barrister, Paul Diamond, to take up the case.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of the CLC said: "We are supporting Mr. Amachree in this case because it is absurd and unjust to think that any public body could be in a position to enforce a policy which means that you can't even say 'God Bless' . This would effectively mean that faith would become entirely privatised. A Christian cannot leave faith out of any aspect of his or her life including work ."

Obamist IRS Presses Pillow to the Face of Peaceful Pro-life Activism in Iowa

2009-07-23T15:20:00.000-07:00

One has to wonder if the Obama IRS clamp-down on peaceful pro-lifers in Iowa is a harbinger of future totalitarianism. According to this slightly edited press release from the Catholic lawyers' Thomas More Society, the new sheriff in town has delivered an ultimatum to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: abandon your protests against Planned Parenthood, or abandon your tax-exempt status.

As a Condition for 501(c)(3) Recognition, IRS Demanded Assurance that the "Coalition for Life of Iowa" Not Picket or Protest Planned Parenthood Locations

The Thomas More Society has demanded that the IRS withdraw its opposition to the 501(c)(3) status of the Coalition for Life of Iowa.

After inquiring about the "educational" nature of the Coalition for Life of Iowa's activities, the Internal Revenue Service stated that it would not grant tax exemption unless the Coalition agreed to limit its "picketing" and "protesting" of Planned Parenthood. Compliance with this request would result in a restriction of the speech of the Coalition for Life, as well as a breach its First Amendment rights.

While other similar pro-life non-profits have had little trouble attaining tax-exempt status from the IRS in the past, this unwarranted ultimatum reveals what may be a new government prejudice against pro-life organizations and the Pro-Life movement. Such demands should never arise in the IRS's decision-making process to grant tax-exempt status for any applicant non-profit organization.

Read more on the IRS ultimatum on the TMS website at http://www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Authoritarian Sodomy Silences Decent British Schoolteachers

2009-07-15T09:58:00.000-07:00

Authoritarian Sodomy suffered a partial reversal in the formerly free United Kingdom recently when North London schoolteacher Kwabena Peat was restored to his teaching position after gay allies suspended him for expressing his Christian views outside the classroom. The Christian Legal Centre represented Peat, and issued the release below.

Although the seasoned 54-year-old educator will return to his classroom in the Fall, the homosexuals and their collaborators nevertheless have succeeded in silencing him in the future, prohibiting any open discussion of the moral dimensions of sodomy or of the coercive sodomite regime that has descended on the United Kingdom, via the school order's gag order against Peat.

If U.S. Christians have wearied of the culture wars, if they're counseled to just go along with U.S. sodomites on gay marriage and hate crimes legislation, they should at least surrender without deluding themselves that the totalitarians will then leave them in peace. Kwabena Peat has seen the future, and he is now prohibited by the most depraved elements of his country, in the birthplace of the Magna Carta, from telling you about it.

Christian Teacher facing sack for expressing Christian beliefs on homosexual practice to Colleagues is re-instated after threat of Legal Action

Kwabena Peat's Story : A senior London teacher, suspended and threatened with the sack for expressing his Christian beliefs at work will be back at work next term.

Kwabena Peat, 54, was suspended after he complained that a staff training day was used to promote homosexual rights, and to marginalise and label those who disagreed with homosexual practice. His case follows a number of others which have left Christians feeling sidelined in the workplace.

Mr Peat, who is head of year at a North London secondary school, walked out of the compulsory training session along with several other colleagues. The session included a presentation by Sue Sanders, a co-founder of the Schools Out organisation which promotes a radical homosexual agenda in schools, in which she questioned whether heterosexuality was “natural”.

Mr Peat states there was no opportunity for those with a different point of view to respond. He wrote to three staff who organised the event and complained about the “aggressive” presentation of homosexual rights. His letter also referred to his Christian beliefs about the practice of homosexuality – that sex should be between a man and woman within marriage.

The recipients of the letter said they felt “harassed and intimidated” by it. Following an investigation, Mr Peat was suspended.

The committed Christian said he fully expected the training session to provide information to help teachers handle homophobic bullying, but the guest speaker had gone much further. He said: “She started promoting homosexual lifestyles and suggesting those who had objections should sort out their prejudices. She asked us ‘What makes you all think that to be heterosexual is natural?’ It was at that point I walked out.”

Mr Peat, supported by the Christian Legal Centre challenged the school’s employment procedures and informed the school that claiming the letter ‘harassed’ staff was ludicrous as the teachers to whom he complained about the event were all senior to him. He also told them he believed the charge ‘gross misconduct’ was disproportionate to any alleged ‘offence’ that they claimed to have taken place. The CLC instructed leading human rights barrister Paul Diamond to advise the teacher and as a result, Mr Peat told the school he was prepared to take them through Industrial Tribunal, and if necessary, to seek a Judicial Review of the Human Rights of Christian Teachers via the High Court if necessary.

The school’s appeal panel, meeting last Friday, week agreed the charge of ‘gross misconduct’ to be disproportionate, and Mr Peat will return to work when the new term commences in September.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, barrister and director of the Christian Legal Centre said: “Although we consider this a great victory for common sense, the School is still seeking to control Mr Peat’s views and behaviour by not allowing him to talk about what has happened, both within the school or via the media, which has been very supportive. Mr Peat was discriminated against for expressing his Christian faith and his invitation to consider Christianity was deemed ‘harassment’. What kind of society are we living in when a legitimate orthodox Christian view as expressed by Mr Peat is construed in this way?

“I am delighted that CLC has secured another success, and that Mr Peat can return to work. It must surely be deemed unacceptable that highly trained teachers should be discriminated against and face dismissal for seeking to protect children. Mr Peat simply expressed a Christian viewpoint and objected to the school undermining parental rights regarding the education of their children on sexual ethics. He should be applauded for challenging the new political orthodoxy in an attempt to protect children rather than face such harsh intimidation”.

Mr Peat is not available for media interviews in order to comply with the school’s request.

Democrats Will Enact Hate Crimes With Minimum of Debate and Transparency

2009-06-13T23:57:00.000-07:00

If Democrats were actually proud of their "hate crimes" proposal, they ought to be willing to hold hearings on it, debate and discuss it, and be accountable for their public comments on it. But they're not. According to this LifeSiteNews article, they intend to slip it into the law books by riders (legislative amendment to unrelated legislation, such as a budget measure).

Hate Crimes Bill to be Smuggled through Senate as a Legislative Amendment
By Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews.com) – The US Senate intends to smuggle controversial hate crimes legislation into federal law by passing it as an amendment to another major piece of legislation instead of a stand-alone piece of legislation, according to remarks by a representative of a major homosexualist organization.

"We understand that Senate leadership does not believe a hearing or mark up on the bill is necessary and plans to bring it directly to the floor as an amendment to another moving vehicle," said Trevor Thomas, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), in a statement provided to the Washington Blade, a homosexual news journal.

Although the US House of Representatives had passed H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as a stand-alone bill by a 249-175 margin in April, the Senate leadership had until lately been debating how to pass its version S. 909 - either as a stand-alone piece legislation which could attract opposition and a possible filibuster, or as an amendment.

Thomas told the Blade that the Senate had opted for the latter as “the most efficient way” to guarantee the measure arrived as quickly as possible at President Barack Obama’s desk for signature.

Opponents of the hate crimes legislation have charged that the bill violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution by making an individual’s thought regarding certain groups as much a factor as the nature of his act in prosecuting a crime.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has pointed out that, “What converts the acts targeted by this bill into a federal offense are the thoughts or opinions of the perpetrator alone.”

H.R. 1913 added "sexual orientation" and “gender identity” as well as race, religion, class, gender, and disability to categories that are protected as "hate crimes.” Under this legislation, crimes against individuals who belong to the protected classes receive stiffer penalties than crimes against other groups not mentioned by the bill, a fact that critics charge makes “second class citizens” out of those not covered by the law.

The bill has also been labeled the "pedophile protection act," in large part due to the refusal of House members to approve an amendment specifying that the bill would not penalize the free speech of those objecting to pedophilia.

The term “sexual orientation” is not defined in the bill, an oversight that some legislators charge could lead to a too broad interpretation – since the term is used by psychologists to encompass a variety of sexual deviancies (including pedophilia), and not just homosexuality.

The HRC told the Blade that they are pushing to have the legislation approved before the end of the August session. It stated that senators in favor of the “hate crimes” bill are looking for “any and all options” as vehicles for the passage of the amendment.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Focus on the Family's Dobson on Hate Crimes Bill: "Utter Evil" Coming out of Congress http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052002.html

Free Speech Concerns Ignored as "Hate Crimes" Bill Passes Fed. Judiciary Committee http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042407.html

Obama Urges House of Representatives to Pass Sexual Orientation "Hate Crimes" Bill http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042911.html

Fed. Judiciary Committee to Examine Homosexualist "Hate Crimes" Bill Monday
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041714.html

Pro-Family Group Urges Congress to Oppose Federal "Hate Crimes" Bill Set for Committee Hearing Tomorrow http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042114.html

Children of the Sodomites

2009-06-01T23:18:00.000-07:00

It was always counter-intuitive that people unable to restrain themselves from the most degrading encounters with fellow adults could nevertheless be wholesome, protective parents to vulnerable, dependent children. But credulous North Americans accepted it on the authority of "experts" and journalists.

Dawn Stefanowicz has cataloged the acts of media complicity and academic legerdemain in her book about the children - including herself - raised by homosexual partners.

SILENCING THE PROBLEMS OF CHILDREN RAISED IN SAME-SEX HOUSEHOLDS
By Dawn Stefanowicz
Author, Out from Under

Quoting propagandist Joseph Goebbels, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it..." For a long time, powerful media have been complicit with those trying to keep people in ignorance about same-sex parenting by silencing debate, and smothering freedom of speech. The impact on children who grow up with same-sex parents is being silenced.

Before my book, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, was published (see Book Review), Canada was in the midst of debating hate crime legislation and same-sex "marriage," I had testified in 2004 at the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and was concerned that the inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a protected category under hate crime legislation would silence freedom of speech. I felt the public was being duped into believing that there were terrible crimes being committed against "gays" and "lesbians" by heterosexuals.

There are no solid statistics to support this. In addition, the media refuses to mention the significant number of same-sex domestic emotional and physical assaults within their subculture. As well, using the undefined term "hate" eludes the real issue: certain people wanting the sexual license and "human right" to do what they please without detraction or constraint.

By the way, the term "sexual orientation" includes sexual attractions or sexual practices involving a person, group of persons, animals, natural or inanimate objects, and legal or illegal sexual practices which are privately or publicly demonstrated. There are no restrictions based on age, blood relation, or gender. Therefore, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, bondage, public nudity, and group sex can be protected under the expression "sexual orientation". These are sexual behaviours I was exposed to growing up with a homosexual father.

After my book was published, I contacted CBC, telling them I was available for interviews. I received no queries from them or from other mainstream Canadian media which I had also notified. Instead, the CBC and other Canadian mainstream media continued with their unbalanced content, failing to mention the problems caused to children by alternative homosexual households.

A few brave Canadian independent television shows, however, did interview me. It was not long before the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) was contacted with complaints of alleged hate and homophobia in connection with my interviews. When the CRTC couldn't find anything wrong with my tone or my comments, it then advised these family friendly media outlets that they must henceforth provide "balance" on their programming on the issue, i.e., include the other side's perspective on same-sex parenting, or else have their broadcasting licenses revoked.

This was outrageous since the mainstream media are pro same-sex parenting and are not required to provide so-called "balance" in their programming on the issue. The CBC, for example, uses our tax dollars to spew forth propaganda supporting same-sex parenting. However, small independent media which rely on sponsors and advertisers are required to provide programs providing both perspectives of the same-sex parenting issue.

As a result of the CRTC ruling, the media outlets which originally aired my story have not contacted me for further interviews. I laud the courage of these pro-life/pro-family stations which interviewed me initially on the truth about "alternative" parenting and subcultures which have opened a Pandora's box of sorrows for children. However, because they want to stay in operation with their licenses intact, they must now comply with the discriminatory hand dealt them by the CRTC.

Media Interviews Outside Canada

In contrast to the disgraceful media censorship in Canada, I was in Ireland in October and spoke before good-sized audiences there, and had a dozen mainstream interviews. By the end of my tour, I was heard by over half of the population of Ireland. In addition, the Washington Times, Michael Medved Show, 30 Days (Fox), Janet Parshall's America and many other U.S. media have covered my book with vigor.

Australia and Hong Kong's print media also have interviewed me. But Canadian media continue to perpetuate the lie that there is no difference between children raised by homosexual and heterosexual parents. Consequently, innocent vulnerable children in Canada are being adopted by same-sex parents despite the fact that this is detrimental to them.

It is not that my story about homosexual parenting is unsupported. Dr. Steven Nock, research methodologist, at the request of the Attorney General of Canada, submitted an affidavit opposed to same-sex marriage in the Halpern vs AG case in 2000 in which he reported over 200 same-sex parenting studies which "contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research."

When clinical psychologists, Dr. Mark Lerner and Dr. Althea Nagai reviewed 49 same-sex parenting studies, all were found unreliable and the sample sizes too small for relevance.

When Sharon Quick, M.D., a paediatric anesthesiologist, and pediatric critical care physician and former assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, reviewed 63 same-sex parenting studies, she found major design flaws, interpretive errors, and unsupported conclusions.

Interestingly, no heterosexual married couples were ever included in any of these studies so you cannot say homosexual parenting is equal or better. In almost every study, "lesbian" single mothers and "heterosexual" single mothers were compared.

The participants were cherry-picked by biased researchers, including "lesbian" participants with higher education and income levels while removing those with mental health issues or criminal records. In most cases, the parent spoke for the dependent child, and in a few cases where children were asked general questions, their responses were qualified.

Dr. Quick reviewed the Technical Report (TR), published in 2002 in Pediatrics, the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which was also used as evidence for the American Medical Association's policy statement supporting the practice of same-sex co-parent adoptions.

In the TR, Dr. Quick found that 57 percent of the references were inaccurately quoted. Unfortunately, some of these TR quotation errors have been carried on in the article, "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children," published in the July 2006 issue of Pediatrics.

The important life-long benefits for children raised in married father-mother home environments cannot be ignored. When Dr. G. Rekers, Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science, Research Director for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Chairman of Faculty in Psychology at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Columbia, S.C. reviewed over two hundred cases of children from homosexual households, he found the children... experienced changing living arrangements, varied cultural values, premature exposure to expressed sexuality, addictions by parents and partners, physical health issues, lower life expectancy, multiple partners, varied gender identity expressions and role models. These traumatized the children.

Consequently, many children from alternative households seek therapy to deal with stress, depression, anxiety, sexual confusion, and suicidal tendencies.

Though I loved my father and cared for his partners, by nine years of age, two of my father's partners had committed suicide after breakups with my father. My father later died of AIDS in 1991. None of my father's partners/ex-partners are alive today.

Editor's Notes

To invite Dawn as a guest speaker or book her for an interview, please contact her at Commissioners Court Plaza, 509 Commissioners Road West, Suite #335, London, Ontario, Canada N6J 1Y5 or e-mail at dawnstefano@sympatico.ca.

Due to space limitations, footnotes for this article were not included, but are available upon request.

Clinton Appointee Annoyed by Appeal, Orders Pesky Rural Counties Plundered for ACLU Attorney Fees

2009-03-20T17:02:00.000-07:00

Authoritarian Atheism is tightening the vice on rural Kentuckians who dared to post the Ten Commandments in their county courthouses, according to this article that ran in the McClatchy newspapers on Wednesday. A federal judge faulted the poverty-stricken southern counties for tenaciously resisting the ACLU in court, thus bringing mountainous legal fees (to be paid to the ACLU's lawyers) upon themselves.

For the Hon. Jennifer Coffman, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Kentucky, prompt capitulation is the only acceptable response to the ACLU. The Clinton appointee may be extra peevish at the uppity Kentuckians' appellate efforts since she was the one who originally ordered the Ten Commandments removed May 5, 2000. Her rulings have uniformly favored the ACLU since that time.

Kentucky counties fined $400,000 for posting Ten Commandments
The Guardian (McClatchy newspapers) - March 18, 2009

Two southern Kentucky counties where officials posted copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses have been ordered by a federal judge to pay more than $400,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union and citizens who successfully challenged the displays. US district judge Jennifer B. Coffman ordered Pulaski and McCreary counties to pay $393,798 in attorneys' fees and $8,133 in expenses to the ACLU of Kentucky and citizens.

Coffman's decision is the latest ruling in a court fight that began a decade ago. The counties don't have to pay immediately because aspects of the case are still being appealed. But if the counties ultimately lose, taxpayers could be on the hook for the bill if insurance doesn't cover it.

McCreary county judge-executive Blaine Phillips said he doesn't think the county's insurance policy would cover its share of the payment. Phillips said McCreary county might seek donations if it has to split the cost of the Ten Commandments fight with Pulaski county. He was reluctant to even mention taxpayer dollars as a possible source for the payment.

"That'll be a hard pill to swallow" if the county has to pay, Phillips said. McCreary county is one of the state's poorest, and is hard-pressed at times to fund police protection and other services.

Phillips said there's been no discussion on how to share the bill with Pulaski county if that becomes necessary. But Mathew Staver, who represents the counties, said he thinks their insurance companies would cover the judgement if the counties someday have to pay.

He said if the counties win the case on appeal, they wouldn't have to pay the ACLU. That is the goal, said Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group.

David A Friedman, lead attorney for the ACLU, agreed that the counties wouldn't have to pay all $400,000 if they win their appeal. However, the ACLU and the citizens who filed the lawsuit would still be entitled to a significant fee award, Friedman said.

The counties argued to Coffman that the fee request from the ACLU was unreasonable. The attorneys spent too much time on some tasks such as legal research, billed for some things they shouldn't have and sought fees that were too high, the counties argued. Coffman disagreed on every point, ruling that the ACLU fee request was reasonable for a complex case that required 1,300 hours of work over 10 years.

She also noted that the counties' own actions ran up the legal bill in the case. The counties started the court battle by posting standalone copies of the Ten Commandments that were "indisputably unconstitutional" at the time, then fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend their actions, Coffman said.

"The defendants 'cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about the time necessarily spent ... in response,'" Coffman wrote, citing an earlier court opinion.

guardian.co.uk (c) Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

Homosexuals and Unbelievers Triumph Over Christians in 9th Circuit Case

2009-03-18T11:54:00.000-07:00

The Ninth Circuit struck yet another blow in favor of authoritarian sodomy in the University of California system today, as it ruled (with lightening-like speed) that Hastings Law need not accord recognition or funding to a Christian student group, due to the Christians' discrimination, in membership and selection of officers, on the bases of religion and sexual orientation.

The Christian Legal Society is expected to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, and the case is a good candidate for Supreme Court review due to the multiple cases arising from this issue at universities across the nation. (One of the reasons the Court accepts a case is to establish a single national rule that applies across all judicial circuits and districts.)

National Law Journal staff reporter Pamela A. MacLean wrote the brief report below.

Law school cannot be required to recognize and fund a religious student group that discriminates
by Pamela A. MacLean Staff reporter

March 18, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO — The University of California Hastings College of the Law cannot be required to recognize and fund a religious student group that discriminates in the selection of members and officers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday.

Just a week after hearing arguments in the case, the 9th Circuit issued a one-paragraph, unpublished order that Hastings' open membership rule prohibiting discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation of members is "viewpoint neutral and reasonable."

The Christian Legal Society made clear after the March 10 argument that it would appeal if it lost at this stage. Christian Legal Society v. Kane, No. 06-15956.

Hastings' attorney, Ethan Schulman of Folger Levin & Kahn in San Francisco, said the issue has arisen repeatedly in test cases at various university campuses across the country. The most recent was Feb. 6 in San Diego. In that case, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns granted summary judgment for San Diego State University against a challenge by Christian student groups.

The CLS case is one of a half-dozen test cases the group has filed in recent years against law schools around the country over similar nondiscrimination pledge requirements. The 9th Circuit decision to side with Hastings may put it in direct conflict with the 7th Circuit.

CLS attorney Timothy J. Tracey, of the Springfield, Va.-based Center for Law and Religious Freedom, argued that the school's denial of official recognition deprives it of some funding, access to recruit students at official events and access to the school Web site and other publications. The school does provide meeting space.

The 9th Circuit panel found that Hastings' rule requiring open voting membership in all student groups, even if members disagree with the mission of the group, is permitted under the 9th Circuit's decision in Truth v. Kent School Dist., 542 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2008), which currently has an application for U.S. Supreme Court review pending.

Obama Consolidates Power, Disrupts Supply Trains of Potential Rivals

2009-03-10T15:16:00.000-07:00

A post in today's Comparing Obama and JFK blog reports on the president's disturbing decisions to consolidate personal power and create insatiable new entitlement constituencies at the price of transforming America's robust, independent private philanthropy sector into gaunt mendicants. Here is an excerpt.

Obama consolidates power, reduces privately-funded philanthropy to his discipline

No danger of confusing President Obama with JFK here. He is not only increasing taxes robustly, but cutting the deductions allowed for charitable contributions. This is not mere revenue generation, but consolidation of power in the national government at the expense of private philanthropy - especially churches and parachurch organizations - which compels further dependency on government officials, and potentially yields a large, loyal patronage constituency where once potential rivals lurked.

Princeton professor Robert George has observed that socialism is not merely antithetical to individualism, but it is an attack on "mediating civic institutions," such as the family and the church. When collectivists' ambitions ambitions approach the totalitarian, there's not enough room on this planet for government and church and family. In the long run, such totalitarians cannot tolerate independent families or churches, and come to view them as incubators for resistance.

American Leftists couldn't openly oppress church and family a generation ago, but times have changed. They are now in full control of the media (see yesterday's post about "media malpractice"), so there is no watchdog to hold them accountable. Our civic literacy has been suppressed (see yesterday's post for the URL to filmmaker John Ziegler's exit interviews of 2008 voters) enough that electoral accountability is unlikely. Triumphal Leftists are casting off restraint now as the Leftist regime settles in.

As an example, legislators in Connecticut recently proposed a bill to remove Catholic Church property from the custody of its bishops, and to require that it be held in trust by laymen. This is transparently an act of retaliation against the church because it dares to oppose homosexual marriage. The Latter Day Saints are incurring similar intimidation in California, for the same reason.

Already Catholic Charities has been driven out of the child adoption business in Massachusetts by homosexualists. If President Obama and his allies are not restrained, there will be soon be no refuge for Christian philanthropy - or Christian conscience - in the U.S.

Supreme Court's syllabus & decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

2009-02-27T05:21:00.000-08:00

Here is an unofficial syllabus and decision of the Supreme Court ruling last Wednesday on the 10 Commandments memorial case from Utah. It was a 9-0 victory for Pleasant Grove City and its attorney, American Center for Law and Justice chief counsel Jay Sekulow.

Some of the footnotes were garbled and have been condensed. Otherwise this is a fairly accurate reproduction of the original document.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
PLEASANT GROVE CITY, UTAH, ET AL. v. SUMMUM
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07–665. Argued November 12, 2008—Decided February 25, 2009

Pioneer Park (Park), a public park in petitioner Pleasant Grove City(City), has at least 11 permanent, privately donated displays, including a Ten Commandments monument. In rejecting the request of respondent Summum, a religious organization, to erect a monument containing the Seven Aphorisms of Summum, the City explained that it limited park monuments to those either directly related to the City’s history or donated by groups with longstanding community ties. After the City put that policy and other criteria into writing, respondent renewed its request, but did not describe the monument’s historical significance or respondent’s connection to the community. The City rejected the request, and respondent filed suit, claiming that the City and petitioner officials had violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause by accepting the Ten Commandments monument but rejecting respondent’s proposed monument. The District Court denied respondent’s preliminary injunction request, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. Noting that it had previously found the Ten Commandments monument to be private rather than government speech and that public parks have traditionally been regarded as public forums, the court held that, because the exclusion of the monument was unlikely to survive strict scrutiny, the City was required to erect it immediately. Held: The placement of a permanent monument in a public park is aform of government speech and is therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause. Pp. 4–18.
(a)
Because that Clause restricts government regulation of private speech but not government speech, whether petitioners were engaging in their own expressive conduct or providing a forum for private speech determines which precedents govern here. Pp. 4–7.
2 PLEASANT GROVE CITY v. SUMMUM
Syllabus
(1)
A government entity “is entitled to say what it wishes,” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 833, and to select the views that it wants to express, see, e.g., Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 194. It may exercise this same freedom when it receives private assistance for the purpose of delivering a government-controlled message. See Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn., 544 U. S. 550, 562. This does not mean that there are no restraints on government speech. For example, government speech must comport with the Establishment Clause. In addition, public officials’ involvement in advocacy may be limited by law, regulation, or practice; and a government entity is ultimately “accountable to the electorate and the political process for its advocacy,” Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 235. Pp. 4–6.
(2)
In contrast, government entities are strictly limited in their ability to regulate private speech in “traditional public fora.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 800. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are allowed, see Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45, but content-based restrictions must satisfy strict scrutiny, i.e., they must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, see Cornelius, supra, at 800. Restrictions based on viewpoint are also prohibited. Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 463. Government restrictions on speech in a “designated public forum” are subject to the same strict scrutiny as restrictions in a traditional public forum. Cornelius, supra, at 800. And where government creates a forum that is limited to use by certain groups or dedicated to the discussion of cer-tain subjects, Perry Ed. Assn., supra, at 46, n. 7, it may impose reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restrictions, see Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 106–107. Pp. 6–7.
(b)
Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech. Governments have long used monuments to speak to the public. Thus, a government-commissioned and government-financed monument placed on public land constitutes government speech. So, too, are privately financed and donatedmonuments that the government accepts for public display on gov-ernment land. While government entities regularly accept privately funded or donated monuments, their general practice has been one of selective receptivity. Because city parks play an important role in defining the identity that a city projects to its residents and the outside world, cities take care in accepting donated monuments, selectingthose that portray what the government decisionmakers view as appropriate for the place in question, based on esthetics, history, andlocal culture. The accepted monuments are meant to convey and have the effect of conveying a government message and thus consti-
tute government speech. Pp. 7–10.
(c)
Here, the Park’s monuments clearly represent government speech. Although many were donated in completed form by private entities, the City has “effectively controlled” their messages by exercising “final approval authority” over their selection. Johanns, supra,at 560–561. The City has selected monuments that present the image that the City wishes to project to Park visitors; it has taken ownership of most of the monuments in the Park, including the Ten Commandments monument; and it has now expressly set out selection criteria. P. 10.
(d)
Respondent’s legitimate concern that the government speech doctrine not be used as a subterfuge for favoring certain viewpoints does not mean that a government entity should be required to embrace publicly a privately donated monument’s “message” in order to escape Free Speech Clause restrictions. A city engages in expressive conduct by accepting and displaying a privately donated monument,but it does not necessarily endorse the specific meaning that any particular donor sees in the monument. A government’s message may be altered by the subsequent addition of other monuments in the same vicinity. It may also change over time. Pp. 10–15.
(e)
“[P]ublic forum principles . . . are out of place in the context of this case.” United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 539 U. S. 194, 205. The forum doctrine applies where a government propertyor program is capable of accommodating a large number of publicspeakers without defeating the essential function of the land or program, but public parks can accommodate only a limited number of permanent monuments. If governments must maintain viewpoint neutrality in selecting donated monuments, they must either prepare for cluttered parks or face pressure to remove longstanding and cherished monuments. Were public parks considered traditional public forums for the purpose of erecting privately donated monuments, most parks would have little choice but to refuse all such donations. And if forum analysis would lead almost inexorably to closing of the forum, forum analysis is out of place. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, distinguished. Pp. 15–18. 483 F. 3d 1044, reversed.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion. SOUTER, J., filed an opin-ion concurring in the judgment.
_________________
_________________
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in thepreliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested tonotify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in orderthat corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 07–665
PLEASANT GROVE CITY, UTAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v. SUMMUM
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[February 25, 2009]

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment entitles a private group to insist that a municipality permit it to place a permanent monument in a city park in which other do-nated monuments were previously erected. The Court of Appeals held that the municipality was required to accept the monument because a public park is a traditional public forum. We conclude, however, that although a park is a traditional public forum for speeches and other transitory expressive acts, the display of a permanent monument in a public park is not a form of expression to which forum analysis applies. Instead, the placement of a permanent monument in a public park is best viewed as a form of government speech and is therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause.

I
A
Pioneer Park (or Park) is a 2.5 acre public park locatedin the Historic District of Pleasant Grove City (or City) in Utah. The Park currently contains 15 permanent displays, at least 11 of which were donated by private groups or individuals. These include an historic granary, a wishing well, the City’s first fire station, a September 11 monument, and a Ten Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971.

Respondent Summum is a religious organization founded in 1975 and headquartered in Salt Lake City,Utah. On two separate occasions in 2003, Summum’s president wrote a letter to the City’s mayor requesting permission to erect a “stone monument,” which would contain “the Seven Aphorisms of SUMMUM” and be similar in size and nature to the Ten Commandments monument.(Respondent’s brief describes the church and the Seven Aphorisms as follows: “The Summum church incorporates elements of Gnostic Christianity, teaching that spiritual knowledge is experiential and that through devotion comes revelation, which ‘modifies human perceptions, and transfigures the individual.’ See The Teachings of Summum are the Teachings of Gnostic Christianity, http://www.summum.us/philosophy/gnosticism.shtml.

“Central to Summum religious belief and practice are the SevenPrinciples of Creation [the “Seven Aphorisms”]. According to Summum doctrine, the Seven Aphorisms were inscribed on the original tablets handed down by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. . . . Because Moses believed that the Israelites were not ready to receive the Aphorisms, he shared them only with a select group of people. In the Summum Exodus account, Moses then destroyed the original tablets, traveled back to Mount Sinai, and returned with a second set of tablets containing the Ten Commandments. See The Aphorisms of Summum and the Ten Commandments ,http://www.summum.us/philosophy/tencommandments.shtml.)

The City denied the requests and explained that its practice was to limit monuments in the Park to those that “either (1) directly relate to the history of Pleasant Grove, or (2) were donated by groups with longstanding ties to the Pleasant Grove community.” Id., at 61. The following year, the City passed a resolution putting this policy into writing. The resolution also mentioned other criteria, such as safety and esthetics.

In May 2005, respondent’s president again wrote to the mayor asking to erect a monument, but the letter did not describe the monument, its historical significance, or Summum’s connection to the community. The city council rejected this request.
B In 2005, respondent filed this action against the City and various local officials (petitioners), asserting, among other claims, that petitioners had violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by accepting the Ten Commandments monument but rejecting the proposed Seven Aphorisms monument. Respondent sought a pre-liminary injunction directing the City to permit Summum to erect its monument in Pioneer Park. After the District Court denied Summum’s preliminary injunction request, No. 2:05CV00638, 2006 WL 3421838 (D Utah, Nov. 22,2006), respondent appealed, pressing solely its free speech claim. A panel of the Tenth Circuit reversed. 483 F. 3d 1044 (2007). The panel noted that it had previously found the Ten Commandments monument to be private rather than government speech. See Summum v. Ogden, 297 F. 3d 995 (2002). Noting that public parks have traditionally been regarded as public forums, the panel held that the City could not reject the Seven Aphorisms monument unless it had a compelling justification that could not be served by more narrowly tailored means. See 483 F. 3d, at 1054. The panel then concluded that the exclusion of respondent’s monument was unlikely to survive this strictscrutiny, and the panel therefore held that the City was required to erect Summum’s monument immediately. The Tenth Circuit denied the City’s petition for rehear-ing en banc by an equally divided vote. 499 F. 3d 1170
4 PLEASANT GROVE CITY v. SUMMUM
Opinion of the Court
(2007). Judge Lucero dissented, arguing that the Park was not a traditional public forum for the purpose of displaying monuments. Id., at 1171. Judge McConnell also dissented, contending that the monuments in the Park constitute government speech. Id., at 1174.
We granted certiorari, 552 U. S. ___ (2008), and now reverse.

II No prior decision of this Court has addressed the application of the Free Speech Clause to a government entity’s acceptance of privately donated, permanent monumentsfor installation in a public park, and the parties disagree sharply about the line of precedents that governs this situation. Petitioners contend that the pertinent cases are those concerning government speech. Respondent, on the other hand, agrees with the Court of Appeals panel that the applicable cases are those that analyze private speech in a public forum. The parties’ fundamental disagreement thus centers on the nature of petitioners’ conduct when they permitted privately donated monuments to be erected in Pioneer Park. Were petitioners engaging in their own expressive conduct? Or were they providing a forum for private speech?

A
If petitioners were engaging in their own expressive conduct, then the Free Speech Clause has no application. The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech. See Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn., 544 U. S. 550, 553 (2005) (“[T]he Government’s own speech . . . is exempt from First Amendment scrutiny”); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 139, n. 7 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring) (“Government is not restrained by the First Amendment from controlling its own expression”). A government entity has the right to “speak for itself.” Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 229 (2000). “[I]t is entitled to say what it wishes,” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 833 (1995), and to select the views that it wants to express. See Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 194 (1991); National Endowment for Arts v. Finley, 524 U. S. 569, 598 (1998) (SCALIA, J., concurring injudgment) (“It is the very business of government to favor and disfavor points of view”).

Indeed, it is not easy to imagine how government could function if it lacked this freedom. “If every citizen were to have a right to insist that no one paid by public funds express a view with which he disagreed, debate over issues of great concern to the public would be limited to those in the private sector, and the process of government as we know it radically transformed.” Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1, 12–13 (1990). See also Johanns, 544 U. S., at 574 (SOUTER, J., dissenting) (“To govern, government has to say something, and a First Amendment heckler’s veto of any forced contribution to raising the government’s voice in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ would be out of the question” (footnote omitted)).

A government entity may exercise this same freedom to express its views when it receives assistance from privatesources for the purpose of delivering a government-controlled message. See id., at 562 (opinion of the Court) (where the government controls the message, “it is not precluded from relying on the government-speech doctrine merely because it solicits assistance from nongovernmen-tal sources”); Rosenberger, supra, at 833 (a government entity may “regulate the content of what is or is not ex-pressed . . . when it enlists private entities to convey itsown message”).
This does not mean that there are no restraints on government speech. For example, government speech must comport with the Establishment Clause. The involvement of public officials in advocacy may be limited by law, regulation, or practice. And of course, a governmententity is ultimately “accountable to the electorate and the political process for its advocacy.” Southworth, 529 U. S., at 235. “If the citizenry objects, newly elected officialslater could espouse some different or contrary position.” Ibid.

B
While government speech is not restricted by the Free Speech Clause, the government does not have a free hand to regulate private speech on government property. This Court long ago recognized that members of the public retain strong free speech rights when they venture into public streets and parks, “which ‘have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.’” Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45 (1983) (quoting Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939) (opinion of Roberts, J.)).

In order to preserve this freedom, government entities are strictly limited in their ability to regulate private speech in such “traditional public fora.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 800 (1985).

Reasonable time, place, and man-ner restrictions are allowed, see Perry Ed. Assn., supra, at 45, but any restriction based on the content of the speech must satisfy strict scrutiny, that is, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, see Cornelius, supra, at 800, and restrictions based on viewpoint are prohibited, see Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 463 (1980).

With the concept of the traditional public forum as a starting point, this Court has recognized that members of the public have free speech rights on other types of government property and in certain other government programs that share essential attributes of a traditional public forum. We have held that a government entity may create “a designated public forum” if government property that has not traditionally been regarded as a public forum is intentionally opened up for that purpose. See Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 802. Government restrictions on speech in a designated public forum are subject to the same strict scrutiny as restrictions in a traditional public forum. Id., at 800.

The Court has also held that a government entity may create a forum that is limited to use by certain groups or dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects. Perry Ed. Assn., supra, at 46, n. 7. In such a forum, a government entity may impose restrictions on speech that are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. See Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 106–107 (2001).

III
There may be situations in which it is difficult to tell whether a government entity is speaking on its own behalf or is providing a forum for private speech, but this case does not present such a situation. Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent govern-ment speech. Governments have long used monuments to speak to the public. Since ancient times, kings, emperors, and other rulers have erected statues of themselves to remind their subjects of their authority and power. Triumphal arches, columns, and other monuments have been built to commemorate military victories and sacrifices and other events of civic importance. A monument, by definition, is a structure that is designed as a means of expression. When a government entity arranges for the construction of a monument, it does so because it wishes to convey some thought or instill some feeling in those who see the structure.

Neither the Court of Appeals nor respondent disputes the obvious proposition that a monument that is commissioned and financed by a government body for placement on public land constitutes government speech.

Just as government-commissioned and government-financed monuments speak for the government, so do privately financed and donated monuments that the government accepts and displays to the public on government land. It certainly is not common for property owners toopen up their property for the installation of permanent monuments that convey a message with which they do not wish to be associated. And because property owners typically do not permit the construction of such monuments on their land, persons who observe donated monuments routinely—and reasonably—interpret them as conveying some message on the property owner’s behalf.

In this context, there is little chance that observers will fail to appreciate the identity of the speaker. This is true whether the monument is located on private property or on public property, such as national, state, or city park land.

We think it is fair to say that throughout our Nation’s history, the general government practice with respect todonated monuments has been one of selective receptivity. A great many of the monuments that adorn the Nation’s public parks were financed with private funds or donated by private parties. Sites managed by the National Park Service contain thousands of privately designed or funded commemorative objects, including the Statue of Liberty,the Marine Corps War Memorial (the Iwo Jima monument), and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. States and cities likewise have received thousands of donated monuments. See, e.g., App. to Brief for International Municipal Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae 15a–29a (hereinafter IMLA Brief) (listing examples); Brief for American Legion et al. as Amici Curiae 7, and n. 2 (same).

By accepting monuments that are privately funded or donated, government entities save tax dollars and are able to acquire monuments that they could not have afforded to fund on their own. But while government entities regularly accept privately funded or donated monuments, they have exercised selectivity.

An example discussed by the city of New York as amicus curiae is illustrative. In the wake of the contro-versy generated in 1876 when the city turned down a donated monument to honor Daniel Webster, the city adopted rules governing the acceptance of artwork forpermanent placement in city parks, requiring, among other things, that "any proposed gift of art had to be viewed either in its finished condition or as a model before acceptance.” Brief for City of New York as Amicus Curiae 4–5 (hereinafter NYC Brief).

Across the country, “municipalities generally exercise editorial control over donated monuments through prior submission requirements,design input, requested modifications, written criteria, and legislative approvals of specific content proposals.” IMLA Brief 21.

Public parks are often closely identified in the public mind with the government unit that owns the land. City parks — ranging from those in small towns, like Pioneer Park in Pleasant Grove City, to those in major metropolises, like Central Park in New York City — commonly play an important role in defining the identity that a city projects to its own residents and to the outside world. Accordingly, cities and other jurisdictions take some care inaccepting donated monuments.

Government decisionmakers select the monuments that portray what they view asappropriate for the place in question, taking into accountsuch content-based factors as esthetics, history, and localculture. The monuments that are accepted, therefore, are meant to convey and have the effect of conveying a government message, and they thus constitute government speech.

IV
A
In this case, it is clear that the monuments in Pleasant Grove’s Pioneer Park represent government speech. Although many of the monuments were not designed or built by the City and were donated in completed form by private entities, the City decided to accept those donations and to display them in the Park. Respondent does not claim that the City ever opened up the Park for the placement of whatever permanent monuments might be offered by private donors. Rather, the City has “effectively controlled” the messages sent by the monuments in the Parkby exercising “final approval authority” over their selec-tion. Johanns, 544 U. S., at 560–561.

The City has selected those monuments that it wants to display for the purpose of presenting the image of the City that it wishesto project to all who frequent the Park; it has taken ownership of most of the monuments in the Park, including the Ten Commandments monument that is the focus of respondent’s concern; and the City has now expressly set forth the criteria it will use in making future selections.

B
Respondent voices the legitimate concern that the government speech doctrine not be used as a subterfuge for favoring certain private speakers over others based on viewpoint. Respondent’s suggested solution is to require a government entity accepting a privately donated monument to go through a formal process of adopting a resolution publicly embracing “the message” that the monument conveys. See Brief for Respondent 33–34, 57. We see no reason for imposing a requirement of this
sort. The parks of this country contain thousands of donated monuments that government entities have used for their own expressive purposes, usually without producing the sort of formal documentation that respondent now says is required to escape Free Speech Clause restrictions. Requiring all of these jurisdictions to go back and proclaim formally that they adopt all of these monuments as their own expressive vehicles would be a pointless exercise that the Constitution does not mandate.

In this case, for example, although respondent argues that Pleasant Grove City has not adequately “controll[ed] the message,” id., at 31, of the Ten Commandments monument, the City took ownership of that monument and put it on permanent display in a park that it owns and manages and that is linked to the City’s identity. All rights previously possessed by the monument’s donor have been relinquished. The City’s actions provided a more dramatic form of adoption than the sort of formal endorsement that respondent would demand, unmistakably signifying to all Park visitors that the City intends the monument to speak on its behalf. And the City has made no effort to abridge the traditional free speech rights — the right to speak, distribute leaflets, etc. — that may be exercised by respondent and others in Pioneer Park.

What respondent demands, however, is that the City “adopt” or “embrace” “the message” that it associates with the monument. Id., at 33–34, 57. Respondent seems to think that a monument can convey only one “message” — which is, presumably, the message intended by the donor — and that, if a government entity that accepts a monument for placement on its property does not formally embrace that message, then the government has not engaged in expressive conduct.

This argument fundamentally misunderstands the way monuments convey meaning. The meaning conveyed by amonument is generally not a simple one like “‘Beef. It’s
What’s for Dinner.’” Johanns, supra, at 554. Even when a monument features the written word, the monument may be intended to be interpreted, and may in fact be interpreted by different observers, in a variety of ways. Monuments called to our attention by the briefing in this case illustrate this phenomenon.

What, for example, is “the message” of the Greco-Roman mosaic of the word “Imagine” that was donated to New York City’s Central Park in memory of John Lennon? See NYC Brief 18; App. to id., at A5. Some observers may “imagine” the musical contributions that John Lennon would have made if he had not been killed. Others may think of the lyrics of the Lennon song that obviously inspired the mosaic and may “imagine” a world without religion, countries, possessions, greed, or hunger.2
——————
2The lyrics are as follows: “Imagine there’s no heaven It’s easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today...
“Imagine there’s no countriesIt isn’t hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace...
“You may say I’m a dreamerBut I’m not the only one I hope someday you’ll join us And the world will be as one
“Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world... J. Lennon, Imagine, on Imagine (Apple Records 1971).

Or, to take another example, what is “the message” of the “large bronze statue displaying the word ‘peace’ in many world languages” that is displayed in Fayetteville, Arkansas?

These text-based monuments are almost certain to evoke different thoughts and sentiments in the minds of different observers, and the effect of monuments that do not contain text is likely to be even more variable. Consider, for example, the statue of Pancho Villa that was given to the city of Tucson, Arizona, in 1981 by the Government of Mexico with, according to a Tucson publication, “a wry sense of irony.” Does this statue commemorate a “revolutionary leader who advocated for agrarian reform and the poor” or “a violent bandit”? The Presidio Trail: A Historical Walking Tour of Downtown Tucson, online at http://www.visittucson.org/includes/media/docs/ DowntownTour.pdf.)IMLA Brief 13.

Contrary to respondent’s apparent belief, it frequently is not possible to identify a single “message” that is conveyed by an object or structure, and consequently, the thoughts or sentiments expressed by a government entity that accepts and displays such an object may be quite different from those of either its creator or its donor.5 By accepting ——————

5Museum collections illustrate this phenomenon. Museums display works of art that express many different sentiments, and the significance of a donated work of art to its creator or donor may differ markedly from a museum’s reasons for accepting and displaying the work.For example, a painting of a religious scene may have been commissioned and painted to express religious thoughts and feelings. Even if the painting is donated to the museum by a patron who shares those thoughts and feelings, it does not follow that the museum, by displaying the painting, intends to convey or is perceived as conveying the ... thinking of the monument’s donor or creator. Indeed, when a privately donated memorial is funded by many small donations, the donors themselves may differ in their interpretation of the monument’s significance.

By accepting such a monument, a government entity does not necessarily endorse the specific meaning that any particular donor sees in the monument. The message that a government entity conveys by allowing a monument to remain on its property may also be altered by the subsequent addition of other monuments in the same vicinity.

For example, following controversy over the original design of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, a compromise was reached that called for the nearby addition of a flagstaff and bronze Three Soldiers statue, which many believed changed the overall effect of the memorial. See, e.g., J. Mayo, War Memorials as Political Landscape: The American Experience and Beyond 202–203, 205(1988); K. Hass, Carried to the Wall: American Memory and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 15–18 (1998).

The “message” conveyed by a monument may change over time. A study of war memorials found that “people reinterpret” the meaning of these memorials as “historical interpretations” and “the society around them changes.” Mayo, supra, at 8–9.

A striking example of how the interpretation of a monument can evolve is [the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund,] a private organization that obtained funding from over 650,000 donors for the construction of the memorial itself. These donors expressed a wide range of personal sentiments in contributing money for the memorial. See, e.g., J. Scruggs & J. Swerdlow, To Heal a Nation: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial 23–28, 159 (1985).

[Another] beloved public monument in the United States [is] the Statue of Liberty. The statue was given to this country by the Third French Republic to express republican solidarity and friendship between the two countries. See J. Res. 6, 44th Cong., 2d Sess. (1877), 19 Stat. 410 (accepting the statue as an “expressive and felicitous memorial of the sympathy of the citizens of our sister Republic”).

At the inaugural ceremony, President Cleveland saw the statue as an emblem of international friendship and the widespread influence of American ideals. See Inauguration of the Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World 30 (1887). Only later did the statue come to be viewed as a beacon welcoming immigrants to a land of freedom. See Public Papers of the Presidents, Ronald Reagan, Vol. 2, July 3, 1986, pp. 918–919 (1989), Remarks at the Opening Ceremonies of the Statue of Liberty Centennial Celebration in New York, New York; J. Higham, The Transformation of the Statue of Liberty, in Send These To Me 74–80 (rev. ed. 1984).

C
Respondent and the Court of Appeals analogize the installation of permanent monuments in a public park to the delivery of speeches and the holding of marches and demonstrations, and they thus invoke the rule that a public park is a traditional public forum for these activities. But “public forum principles . . . are out of place inthe context of this case.” United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 539 U. S. 194, 205 (2003). The forum doctrine has been applied in situations in which government-owned property or a government program was capable of accommodating a large number of public speakers without defeating the essential function of the land or the program.

For example, a park can accommodate many speakers and, over time, many parades and demonstrations. The Combined Federal Campaign permits hundreds of groups to solicit donations from federal employees. See Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 804–805.

A public university’sstudent activity fund can provide money for many campus activities. See Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 825. A public university’s buildings may offer meeting space for hundreds of student groups. See Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 274–275 (1981).

A school system’s internal mailfacilities can support the transmission of many messagesto and from teachers and school administrators. See Perry Ed. Assn., 460 U. S., at 39, 46–47. See also Arkansas Ed. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U. S. 666, 680–681 (1998) (noting that allowing any candidate to participate in a televised political debate would be burdensome on “logistical grounds” and “would result in less speech, not more”).

By contrast, public parks can accommodate only a limited number of permanent monuments. Public parks have been used, “‘time out of mind, . . . for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions,’” Perry Ed. Assn., supra, at 45 (quoting Hague, 307 U. S., at 515), but “one would be hard pressed to find a ‘long tradition’ of allowing people to permanently occupy public space with any manner of monuments.” 499 F. 3d, at 1173 (Lucero, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

Speakers, no matter how long-winded, eventually come to the end of their remarks; persons distributing leaflets and carrying signs at some point tire and go home; monuments, however, endure. They monopolize the use of the land on which they stand and interfere permanently with other uses of public space. A public park, over the years, can provide a soapbox for a very large number of orators — often, for all who want to speak — but it is hard to imagine how a public park could be opened up for the installation of permanent monuments by every person or group wishing to engage in that form of expression.

Respondent contends that this issue “can be dealt with through content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions, including the option of a ban on all unattended displays.” Brief for Respondent 14. On this view, when France presented the Statue of Liberty to the United States in 1884, this country had the option of either (a) declining France’s offer or (b) accepting the gift, but providing a comparable location in the harbor of New York for other statues of a similar size and nature (e.g., a Statue of Autocracy, if one had been offered by, say, the German Empire or Imperial Russia).

While respondent and some of its amici deride the fears expressed about the consequences of the Court of Appeals holding in this case, those concerns are well founded. If government entities must maintain viewpoint neutrality in their selection of donated monuments, they must either “brace themselves for an influx of clutter” or face the pressure to remove longstanding and cherished monuments. See 499 F. 3d, at 1175 (McConnell, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

Every jurisdiction that has accepted a donated war memorial may be asked to provide equal treatment for a donated monument questioning the cause for which the veterans fought. New York City, having accepted a donated statue of one heroic dog (Balto, the sled dog who brought medicine to Nome, Alaska, during a diphtheria epidemic)7 may be pressed to accept monuments for other dogs who are claimed to be equally worthy of commemoration.

The obvious truth of the matter is that if public parks were considered to be traditional public forums for the purpose of erecting privately donated monuments, most parks would have little choice but to refuse all such donations. And where the application of forum analysis would lead almost inexorably to closing of the forum, it is obvious that forum analysis is out of place.

Respondent compares the present case to Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753 (1995), but that case involved a very different situation - a request by a private group, the Ku Klux Klan, to erect a cross for a period of 16 days on public property that had been opened up for similar temporary displays, including a Christmas tree and a menorah. See id., at 758.

Although some public parks can accommodate and may be made generally available for temporary private displays, the same is rarely true for permanent monuments. To be sure, there are limited circumstances in which the forum doctrine might properly be applied to a permanent monument — for example, if a town created a monument on which all of its residents (or all those meeting some other criterion) could place the name of a person to be honored or some other private message. But as a general matter, forum analysis simply does not apply to the installation of permanent monuments on public property.

V
In sum, we hold that the City’s decision to accept certain privately donated monuments while rejecting respondent’s is best viewed as a form of government speech. As a result, the City’s decision is not subject to the Free Speech Clause, and the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise. We therefore reverse.
It is so ordered.
_________________
_________________
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 1
STEVENS, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 07–665
PLEASANT GROVE CITY, UTAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v. SUMMUM
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[February 25, 2009]
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins,concurring.
This case involves a property owner’s rejection of an offer to place a permanent display on its land. While I join the Court’s persuasive opinion, I think the reasons justifying the city’s refusal would have been equally valid if its acceptance of the monument, instead of being characterized as “government speech,” had merely been deemed an implicit endorsement of the donor’s message. See Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, 801–802 (1995) (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

To date, our decisions relying on the recently minted government speech doctrine to uphold government action have been few and, in my view, of doubtful merit. See, e.g., Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410 (2006); Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn., 544 U. S. 550 (2005); Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173 (1991). The Court’s opinion in this case signals no expansion of that doctrine. And by joining the Court’s opinion, I do not mean to indicate agreement with our earlier decisions. Unlike other decisions relying on the government speech doctrine, our decision in this case excuses no retaliation for, or coercion of, private speech. Cf. Garcetti, 547 U. S., at 438 (SOUTER, J., dissenting); Rust, 500 U. S., at 212 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). Nor is it likely, given the near certainty that observers will associate permanent displays with the governmental property owner, that the government will be able to avoid political accountability for the views that it endorses or expresses through this means. Cf. Johanns, 544
U. S., at 571–572 (SOUTER, J., dissenting). Finally, recognizing permanent displays on public property as government speech will not give the government free license to communicate offensive or partisan messages. For even if the Free Speech Clause neither restricts nor protects government speech, government speakers are bound by the Constitution’s other proscriptions, including those supplied by the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. Together with the checks imposed by our democratic processes, these constitutional safeguards ensure that the effect of today’s decision will be limited.
_________________
_________________
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 1
SCALIA, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 07–665
PLEASANT GROVE CITY, UTAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v. SUMMUM
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[February 25, 2009]
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins,concurring.
As framed and argued by the parties, this case presents a question under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. I agree with the Court’s analysis of that question and join its opinion in full. But it is also obvious that from the start, the case has been litigated in the shadow of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause: the city wary of associating itself too closely with the Ten Commandments monument displayed in the park, lest that be deemed a breach in the so-called “wall of separation between church and State,” Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1879); respondent exploiting that hesitation to argue that the monument is not government speech because the city has not sufficiently “adopted” its message. Respondent menacingly observed that while the city could have formally adopted the monument as its own, that “might of course raise Establishment Clause issues.” Brief for Respondent 34, n. 11.

The city ought not fear that today’s victory has propelled it from the Free Speech Clause frying pan into the Establishment Clause fire. Contrary to respondent’s intimations, there are very good reasons to be confident that the park displays do not violate any part of the FirstAmendment.

In Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677 (2005), this Court upheld against Establishment Clause challenge a virtually identical Ten Commandments monument, donated by the very same organization (the Fraternal Order of Eagles),which was displayed on the grounds surrounding the Texas State Capitol.

Nothing in that decision suggested that the outcome turned on a finding that the monument was only “private” speech. To the contrary, all the Justices agreed that government speech was at issue, but the Establishment Clause argument was nonetheless rejected. For the plurality, that was because the Ten Command-ments “have an undeniable historical meaning” in addition to their “religious significance,” id., at 690 (opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.). JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in the judgment, agreed that the monument conveyed a permissible secular message, as evidenced by its location in a park that contained multiple monuments and historical markers; by the fact that it had been donated by the Eagles “as part of that organization’s efforts to combat juvenile delinquency”; and by the length of time (40 years) for which the monument had gone unchallenged. Id., at 701–
703. See also id., at 739–740 (SOUTER, J., dissenting).

Even accepting the narrowest reading of the narrowest opinion necessary to the judgment in Van Orden, there is little basis to distinguish the monument in this case: Pioneer Park includes “15 permanent displays,” ante, at 1– 2; it was donated by the Eagles as part of its national effort to combat juvenile delinquency, Brief for Respondent 3; and it was erected in 1971, ibid., which means it is approaching its (momentous!) 40th anniversary.

The city can safely exhale. Its residents and visitors can now return to enjoying Pioneer Park’s wishing well, its historic granary — and, yes, even its Ten Commandments monument — without fear that they are complicit in an establishment of religion.
_________________
_________________
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 1
BREYER, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 07–665
PLEASANT GROVE CITY, UTAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v. SUMMUM
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[February 25, 2009]
JUSTICE BREYER, concurring.
I agree with the Court and join its opinion. I do so, however, on the understanding that the “government speech” doctrine is a rule of thumb, not a rigid category. Were the City to discriminate in the selection of permanent monuments on grounds unrelated to the display's theme, say solely on political grounds, its action might well violate the First Amendment.

In my view, courts must apply categories such as “government speech,” “public forums,” “limited public forums,”and “nonpublic forums” with an eye towards their purposes — lest we turn “free speech” doctrine into a jurisprudence of labels. Cf. United States v. Kokinda, 497 U. S. 720, 740–743 (1990) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Consequently, we must sometimes look beyond an initial categorization.

And, in doing so, it helps to ask whether a government action burdens speech disproportionately in light of the action’s tendency to further a legitimate government objective. See, e.g., Ysursa v. Pocatello Ed. Assn., ante, at 1–4 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 404 (2000) (BREYER, J., concurring).

Were we to do so here, we would find — for reasons that the Court sets forth — that the City’s action, while preventing Summum from erecting its monument, does not disproportionately restrict Summum’s freedom of expression. The City has not closed off its parks to speech; no one claims that the City prevents Summum’s members from engaging in speech in a form more transient than a permanent monument. Rather, the City has simply reserved some space in the park for projects designed to further other than free-speech goals. And that is perfectly proper. After all, parks do not serve speech-related interests alone.

To the contrary, cities use park space to further a variety of recreational, historical, educational, aesthetic,and other civic interests. To reserve to the City the power to pick and choose among proposed monuments according to criteria reasonably related to one or more of these legitimate ends restricts Summum’s expression, but, given the impracticality of alternatives and viewed in light of the City’s legitimate needs, the restriction is not disproportionate. Analyzed either way, as “government speech” or as a proportionate restriction on Summum’s expression, the City’s action here is lawful.
_________________
_________________
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 1
SOUTER, J., concurring in judgment
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 07–665
PLEASANT GROVE CITY, UTAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v. SUMMUM
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[February 25, 2009]
JUSTICE SOUTER, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that the Ten Commandments monument is government speech, that is, an expression of a government’s position on the moral and religious issues raised by the subject of the monument. See Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 235 (2000) (noting government speech may “promote[government’s] own policies or . . . advance a particular idea”). And although the government should lose when the character of the speech is at issue and its governmental nature has not been made clear, see Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn., 544 U. S. 550, 577 (2005) (SOUTER, J., dissenting), I also agree with the Court that the city need not satisfy the particular formality urged by Summum as a condition of recognizing that the expression here falls within the public category. I have qualms,however, about accepting the position that public monuments are government speech categorically. See ante, at 8 (“Just as government-commissioned and government-financed monuments speak for the government, so do privately financed and donated monuments that the government accepts and displays to the public on government land”).

Because the government speech doctrine, as JUSTICE STEVENS notes, ante, at 1 (concurring opinion), is “recently minted,” it would do well for us to go slow in setting its bounds, which will affect existing doctrine in ways not yet explored. Even though, for example, Establishment Clause issues have been neither raised nor briefed before us, there is no doubt that this case and its government speech claim has been litigated by the parties with one eye on the Establishment Clause, see ante, at 1 (SCALIA, J., concurring). The interaction between the “government speech doctrine” and Establishment Clause principles has not, however, begun to be worked out.

The case shows that it may not be easy to work out. After today’s decision, whenever a government maintains a monument it will presumably be understood to be engaging in government speech. If the monument has some religious character, the specter of violating the Establishment Clause will behoove it to take care to avoid the ap-pearance of a flat-out establishment of religion, in the sense of the government’s adoption of the tenets expressed or symbolized. In such an instance, there will be safety in numbers, and it will be in the interest of a careful government to accept other monuments to stand nearby, to dilute the appearance of adopting whatever particular religious position the single example alone might stand for. As mementoes and testimonials pile up, however, the chatter may well make it less intuitively obvious that the government is speaking in its own right simply by maintaining the monuments.

If a case like that occurred, as suspicion grew that some of the permanent displays were not government speech at all (or at least had an equally private character associated with private donors), a further Establishment Clause prohibition would surface, the bar against preferring some religious speakers over others. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 113 (1985) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (“The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others”).

But the government could well argue, as a development of government speech doctrine, that when it expresses its own views, it is free of the Establishment Clause’s stricture against discriminating among religious sects or groups. Under this view of the relationship between the two doctrines, it would be easy for a government to favor some private religious speakers over others by its choice of monuments to accept.

Whether that view turns out to be sound is more than I can say at this point. It is simply unclear how the relatively new category of government speech will relate to the more traditional categories of Establishment Clause analysis, and this case is not an occasion to speculate. It is an occasion, however, to try to keep the inevitable issues open, and as simple as they can be. One way to do that is to recognize that there are circumstances in which government maintenance of monuments does not look like government speech at all. Sectarian identifications on markers in Arlington Cemetery come to mind. And to recognize that is to forgo any categorical rule at this point.

To avoid relying on a per se rule to say when speech is governmental, the best approach that occurs to me is to ask whether a reasonable and fully informed observer would understand the expression to be government speech, as distinct from private speech the government chooses to oblige by allowing the monument to be placed on public land. This reasonable observer test for governmental character is of a piece with the one for spotting forbidden governmental endorsement of religion in the Establishment Clause cases. See, e.g., County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 630, 635–636 (1989)(O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judg-ment). The adoption of it would thus serve coherence within Establishment Clause law, and it would make sense of our common understanding that some monuments on public land display religious symbolism thatclearly does not express a government’s chosen views.

Application of this observer test provides the reason I find the monument here to be government expression.

Chalk One Up For the Good Guys

2009-02-25T20:10:00.000-08:00

Counsel for a cynical anti-Christian group probably knew they were in trouble when the small Utah town they were bullying, Pleasant Grove City, fought back by putting the varsity on the court - conservative Constitutional litigator Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.

Sekulow argued the case before the Supreme Court in November after "mooting" it before the legal profession's equivalent of focus groups at Regent University and elsewhere. In a rare unanimous decision, the Court held that the small Utah town could harbor a monument to the Ten Commandments in its town square without violating the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that it does not thereby obligate itself to provide equal prominence to insipid, sarcastic monuments of the sort proposed by the Summa bullies.
Washington Post - City Can Reject Religious Display; Supreme Court Backs Utah Officials
February 26, 2009
By Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer

The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously agreed that permanent monuments in public parks are a form of government speech and that a small town in Utah was within its rights to reject an offer from a little-known religious group to have its "Seven Aphorisms" placed next to the Ten Commandments.

In a decision closely watched by government officials across the nation, the justices said officials in Pleasant Grove, Utah, did not violate the First Amendment rights of the Summum religious order by rejecting its monument.

Permanent monuments in city parks, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court, are erected "for the purpose of presenting the image of the City that it wishes to project to all who frequent the park," and thus governments can decide for themselves which to erect, which to accept from others and which to turn down.

"It's a landmark decision that clears the way for government to express its views and its history through the selection of monuments -- including religious monuments and displays," said Jay A. Sekulow of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, which argued the case for Pleasant Grove.

Summum had contended -- and an appeals court had agreed -- that the city park was a forum for public speech. The First Amendment's free-speech clause meant that city leaders could not accept a version of speech with which they agreed and reject one with which they did not, the group's lawyers said.

But Alito said the analogy was wrong.

"A public park, over the years, can provide a soapbox for a very large number of orators -- often, for all who want to speak -- but it is hard to imagine how a public park could be opened up for the installation of permanent monuments by every person or group wishing to engage in that form of expression," he wrote.

The unified decision stood in contrast to the court's splits when it has considered public displays of the Ten Commandments in the context of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits government endorsement of religion.

In 2005, the court allowed such a display on the grounds of the Texas Capitol because of its historic placement among other monuments. But it disallowed the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse because the court said the display was meant to convey a religious message.

Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. have joined the court since those decisions, and the justices announced this week that they will hear a new establishment clause challenge in a case involving an eight-foot cross that has stood for more than 70 years in the Mojave National Preserve in California.

Pleasant Grove's 2.5-acre Pioneer Park has about 15 permanent displays, most of them donated by civic groups, including a granary, a wishing well, the city's first fire station and the Ten Commandments monument, which was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971.

In 2003, Summum, a Salt Lake City-based religion formed in 1975, sought permission to put its monument to the Seven Aphorisms there as well. Summum's name is drawn from a Latin term meaning "the sum of all," and the group's philosophy combines elements of Gnostic Christianity with Egyptian themes.

It teaches that the aphorisms --"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates," says the Principle of Vibration -- were on the stone tablets dictated by God to Moses along with the Ten Commandments but were revealed to only a small group of people.

When the city refused Summum's offer, the group successfully appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In his opinion reversing that decision, Alito warned that "this does not mean that there are no restraints on government speech," noting that it must "comport with the Establishment Clause." And he said governments must not use the cover of government speech as "a subterfuge for favoring certain private speakers over others based on viewpoint."

But he said governments that, for instance, erect memorials to war dead need not "provide equal treatment for a donated monument questioning the cause for which the veterans fought."

And he said monuments may not always be clear on what the government's message is. The "Imagine" memorial to John Lennon in New York's Central Park may cause some to wonder about the contributions Lennon might have made if he had not been murdered, Alito wrote, and others to contemplate the song's lyrics, which Alito provided in a footnote.

While the decision about Pleasant Grove was unanimous, six justices weighed in to elaborate in concurring opinions.

Justice David H. Souter said he agreed with the decision. But he said that if a government accepts a monument with "some religious character, the specter of violating the Establishment Clause will behoove it to take care to avoid the appearance of a flat-out establishment of religion."

Brian Barnard, a lawyer for Summum, said that would be the church's next legal fight. But he acknowledged that a decision that said Pleasant Grove officials violated the establishment clause by adopting the Ten Commandments as government speech could just as likely lead the city to remove the current monument rather than add the aphorisms. That has been the case in other Utah jurisdictions where the group has brought lawsuits.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined in a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, suggested that Summum would not be successful in pursuing an establishment clause argument and said the case was similar to the one involving the Texas Capitol.

He said Pleasant Grove need not worry about breaching the "so-called" wall of separation between church and state.

"The city can safely exhale," Scalia wrote. "Its residents and visitors can now return to enjoying Pioneer Park's wishing well, its historic granary -- and, yes, even its Ten Commandments monument -- without fear that they are complicit in an establishment of religion."

The case is Pleasant Grove City v. Summum.

California Leftists Criminalize Christian Outreach to Mothers En Route to Abortion

2009-02-20T19:57:00.000-08:00

A pastor in an African-American denomination has been sentenced to jail for engaging mothers in conversation outside an abortion facility in Oakland, California, according to this San Francisco Chronicle story.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers target the Black and Hispanic markets disproportionately, and the Genocide Awareness Project has observed that the Planned Parenthood Federation's death toll (of Blacks) dwarfs the Ku Klux Klan's.

If sidewalk counselors were to have a significant impact outside abortion facilities in Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, it is unlikely abortionists could make up the sales in white middle-class neighborhoods. They have accordingly dug in their heels in minority neighborhoods, and have apparently decided to discourage resistance by making an example of sidewalk counselors like Pastor Hoye.

Pastor sentenced for Oakland abortion protest
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, February 20, 2009

A pastor at a Berkeley church was sentenced Thursday to three years' probation and fined $1,000 after becoming the first person convicted under an Oakland ordinance barring protesters from coming within 8 feet of anyone entering an abortion clinic.

Walter Hoye could have faced up to two years in jail after a jury convicted him last month of two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully approaching patients at the Family Planning Specialists Medical Group at Second and Webster streets.

The case was an emotional one, and pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates jammed the Oakland courtroom for the sentencing hearing. Dozens of people unable to find seats filled the hallway outside.

Hoye, 52, of Union City appeared ready to accept a jail sentence, telling Judge Stuart Hing of Alameda County Superior Court, "I believe that an unjust law is no law at all."

Hing said Hoye was by all accounts a "decent person." But illegal conduct is not justifiable when there are legal ways of protesting, the judge said.

Hing asked if Hoye would abide by an order requiring him to stay 100 yards away from the Oakland clinic, and the pastor said no.

The judge then imposed the stay-away order anyway, fined Hoye and sentenced him to three years of probation and 30 days in jail. Hoye can serve his time in a sheriff's work detail or by volunteering.

The "medical safety zone" around abortion clinics was set by the Oakland City Council in 2007. Abortion protesters must stay at least 8 feet from women, staff or escorts entering the buildings.

The council passed the law in response to complaints of harassment at three abortion clinics in the city. Anti-abortion activists called it an intrusion on their freedom of speech.

Hoye, executive elder of the Progressive Missionary Baptist Church in south Berkeley, hands out anti-abortion literature outside abortion clinics. He was arrested May 13 at the Oakland clinic, carrying a sign that read, "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help you!"

As women approached the door, he asked them, "May I talk to you about alternatives to the clinic?"

"He never laid hands on anyone," Levon Yuille, a nondenominational minister from Michigan who flew in for the sentencing, told the judge. Yuille also heads the National Black Pro-Life Congress.

Prosecutor Robert Graff said the incident was not a standard free-speech case.

"It's not that benign. It's not that neutral," Graff said.

In a statement, Katrina Cantrell, associate executive director of Women's Health Specialists, said, "When anyone restricts access to reproductive health services, every woman affected is a living example of a colonized body."

Defense attorney Mike Millen said there had been a "conspicuous absence" of patients at the trial who said they felt threatened by Hoye.

Canadian University Prosecutes Its Own Students for Stalwart Pro-Life Witness

2009-02-04T18:14:00.000-08:00

Pro-life college students will be charged with criminal trespass on their own university campus in formerly free Canada later this month, after they defied administrators' demands that they turn their materials away from onlookers, according to this Calgary Herald report.

Calgary anti-abortion activists charged
CALGARY — A group of anti-abortion student activists are heading to court this month after the University of Calgary charged them with trespassing.

Campus Pro-Life and university administrators have been locked in a dispute over a controversial anti-abortion display called the Genocide Awareness Project, which puts images of dead fetuses next to images of Holocaust or Rwanda genocide victims.

The student group went ahead on Nov. 26 with plans to erect the display against the university's requests to turn the graphic images inward to protect those who didn't wish to see them. More than two months later, some of the students behind the project have been charged with trespassing and received summonses to court on Feb 27.

"It's surprising, to say the least, as well as disappointing," said Campus Pro-Life president Leah Hallman. "I agree we were warned (about the possibility of legal action). But we had a lot of hope. now a lot of that hope has now been crushed."

The university has not yet responded to a request for comment. But in a written statement issued when the display was put up in November, the university administration said it had "asked the Calgary Police Service to issue the appropriate summonses to the individuals ignoring the notice of trespass or to take other appropriate steps to enforce the directive." (emphasis added) At the time, it went on to say the matter might be resolved "through the court system.”

Is Respect for "Rule of Law" Morphing into Tragic Judicial Activism?

2009-02-02T09:04:00.003-08:00

The Obama administration is reportedly pressuring client states to adopt pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policies as a condition of North American financial assistance. A coalition of Catholic and Muslim nations, organized by the Vatican representative to the United Nations, held the line against strong-arming by the Clinton administration about 15 years ago.

Now the North American Democrats are employing a more sophisticated strategy to piggyback leftist judicial activism onto advances in the rule of law. In other words, having persuaded Third World elites of the advantages of respecting and enforcing judicial review, we now undertake to corrupt it, and deploy it in the service of sodomy and baby-killing. How utterly heartbreaking on numerous levels!

The Republic of Colombia can take a hint. Highly dependent on U.S. aid to resist some of the worst narco-terrorists on the planet, facing in Obama and his Secretary of State two former Senators who helped vote down the Free Trade Agreement with them, Colombian judicial activists have elbowed the freely elected legislature in Bogota aside, and extended a broad range of rights to homosexuals, withholding only the right to adopt children. Can abortion-on-demand be far behind?

LifeSiteNews.com reports below on the consternation at the Colombian legislature.

LifeSiteNews.com
Colombian Supreme Court Grants Broad Special Rights to Homosexual Couples
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BOGOTA LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Colombia has ruled that homosexual couples are entitled a broad array of rights normally granted to heterosexual couples under the law.

Under the ruling, announced on Wednesday, homosexual couples will receive equal status with heterosexual couples under 42 different provisions of the law, ranging from military benefits to naturalization of a foreign partner. Homosexuals will also be excused from testifying against their sex partners.

However, the Court, in an apparent response to the strong pro-family values of Colombian society, did not grant the right to adopt children. It also refused to allow homosexual relationships to be called a "marriage."

The ruling arrives after years of refusal by the Colombian Congress to grant special rights to the partners of homosexuals, a sentiment that is echoed with almost perfect unanimity throughout the strongly Catholic and pro-family Latin America.

The decision of the Court, however, is being strongly denounced by pro-family legislators as a case of judicial activism. The President of Columbia should consider "closing the Congress because there are now nine people who are taking on the faculties and carrying out the functions of the 200 who were selected by the people," said ex-congressman Victor Velasquez in a press conference.

He also reportedly called on the leaders of the Catholic Church to protest against this "attack against the morals of the country." Velasquez also declared his intention to seek a declaration of nullity on the grounds that the Court is exceeding its constitutional authority.

Hernando Salazar, an editorialist for BBC World, said that the decision of the court is "paradoxical" because the "the Congress has rejected various bills in favor of same-sex couples" while "the judicial branch has nullified legal measures that it considers to be in violation of the right to equality for those unions."

He also stated that "other experts consulted by BBC World, who requested anonymity, believe that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are a response to the 'homophobia and the machismo that is observed in the Congress of the Republic.'"

"The Court has recognized a social reality with extreme prudence and moderation," said Excobar Gil, one of the Court's nine justices. "It has expanded rights in situations similar to those of heterosexual couples without affecting basic values of our culture and social morality, and protecting the institution of the family."

The verdict, which came in response to a lawsuit filed by homosexual rights advocates, follows a 2007 ruling that granted health benefits and pensions to the partners of homosexuals.

Christian Prayer is Anathema in P.C. British Health Care System

2009-02-02T08:33:00.000-08:00

The home of the Magna Carta and Blackstone and Wilberforce continues to clamp down on its Christian remnant, according to this release from the United Kingdom's Christian Legal Centre.

A Christian nurse there was suspended from her job for offering to pray for one of her elderly patients. Not even Sharia law would prohibit a benign middle-aged woman from praying for her suffering wards. Are Great Britain's P.C. Inquisitors so drunk with their newfound power, and is the sensible majority so disengaged and apathetic, that simple decent gestures like this will be anathema from now on? Maybe so.

CLC supports Christian nurse suspended for prayer offer

A Christian nurse from Weston-super-Mare has been suspended from her work for offering to pray for an elderly patient.

Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and devout Christian, is facing dismissal for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.

Mrs Petrie, who is married mother of two, has been accused by her employers of failing to demonstrate a ‘personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity’ because of her offer of prayer.

She was suspended, without pay, on 17th December 2008 and will find out the outcome of her disciplinary meeting this week. She says she has been left shocked and upset by the action taken against her.

Mrs Petrie, who has been a community nurse since 1985 and is employed by North Somerset Primary Care Trust, said she had asked an elderly patient if she would like a prayer said for her after she had put dressings on the patient’s legs. The patient declined and Mrs Petrie took the matter no further.

The situation arose at the home of the patient in North Somerset. Mrs Petrie said: ‘It was around lunchtime and I had spent about 20 to 25 minutes with her. I had applied dressings to her legs and shortly before I left I said to her: “Would you like me to pray for you?” She said “No, thank you.” And I said: “OK.” I only offered to pray for her because I was concerned about her welfare and wanted her to get better.’

Mrs Petrie was initially confronted the next day by a nursing sister who said the patient had been taken aback by her question about prayer. Subsequently, Mrs Petrie received a message on her home phone from the North Somerset Primary Care Trust telling her that disciplinary action against her would be taken. She was then suspended.

Caroline Petrie said ‘The woman mentioned it to the sister who did her dressing the following day. She said that she wasn’t offended but was concerned that someone else might be. I was spoken to by my manager. She said “I’ve got a letter in one hand and an incident form in the other. You won’t be able to work until we’ve investigated this incident”.’

Following the events the elderly patient said: ‘Mrs Petrie was a nice lady, did the job properly and was quietly spoken. Personally I wouldn't want to see her sacked for something like that.’

Mrs Petrie said: ‘I have trouble understanding how offering to pray for someone could be upsetting. I feel it's a nice thing to ask and a way to give hope that circumstances can change.’ She says that she often offers to pray for her patients and that many take her up on it. She either prays with them or after she has left their home.

In October 2008 Caroline Petrie was also warned by The Trust for offering a small, home-made prayer card to an elderly, male patient, who had happily accepted it. On this occasion, the patient's carer, who was with her at the time, raised concerns over the incident.

Alison Withers, Mrs Petrie’s superior at the time, wrote to her at the end of November 2008 saying: ‘As a nurse you are required to uphold the reputation of your profession. Your NMC [Nursing Midwifery Council] code states that “you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity” and “you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health”.

Caroline Petrie was asked to attend an equality and diversity course and warned: ‘If there is any further similar incident it may be treated as potential misconduct and the formal disciplinary procedure could be instigated.’

Mrs. Petrie and her husband Stewart attend Milton Baptist Church every Sunday. ‘My faith got stronger and I realised God was doing amazing things in my life. I saw my patients suffering and as I believe in the power of prayer, I began asking them if they wanted me to pray for them. They are absolutely delighted.’

Caroline Petrie has worked for The Trust since February 2008. The Christian Legal Centre is supporting Caroline Petrie in this matter.

The Christian Legal Centre relies on financial donations to run Caroline’s case and others like hers. If you are able to contribute financially to support this case we would be very grateful. http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=196

Andrea Williams, the founder and Director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: ‘It is of huge concern that Christian citizens, whose desire is to do their jobs well, are increasingly being silenced and pushed out of the ‘public square’ because of Equality and Diversity Policies. It is extraordinary, that these policies which purport to ensure tolerance are ushering in a new form of censorship and intolerance which should concern us all.’

No Special Treatment for Congregations When Private Developers Covet Their Land

2009-01-30T15:26:00.000-08:00

Two Brooklyn Law professors have written a paper in the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) proposing that the Religious Land Use statute enacted by a previous (Republican) Congress merely protects congregations from unfavorable zoning changes and landmark designation, but should present no obstacle to taking church property by condemnation.

The issue is more urgent nowadays because of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which could make the congregations vulnerable to involuntary takings for the use of commercial land developers or hostile secular nonprofit competitors.

SSRN's abstract of the article is reproduced below.

Condemning Religion: The Political Economy of RLUIPA

Christopher Serkin
Brooklyn Law School
Nelson Tebbe
Brooklyn Law School

Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 127

Abstract:
Should religious landowners enjoy special protection from eminent domain? A recent federal statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), compels courts to apply strict scrutiny to zoning and landmarking regulations that substantially burden religiously owned property.

That provision has been controversial in itself, but today a new cutting-edge issue is emerging: whether the Act's extraordinary protection should extend to condemnation as well. The matter has taken on added significance in the wake of Kelo, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed its expansive view of the eminent domain power.

In this Article, we argue that RLUIPA should not give religious assemblies any extraordinary ability to resist condemnation.

We offer two principal reasons for this proposal. First, the political economy surrounding condemnation is markedly different from that of zoning, so that broadening the law's protections beyond zoning to cover outright takings would be unnecessary and ineffective. Second, the costs of presumptively exempting congregations from condemnation are likely to be far higher than the costs of applying strict scrutiny to zoning.

In conclusion, we identify an important implication of our argument for the law's core zoning provision - namely, our proposal invites local governments to circumvent RLUIPA by simply condemning religious property that they find difficult to zone because of the Act. On the one hand, this gives local governments a needed safety valve while, on the other hand, requiring them to pay just compensation to religious groups.

Our proposal therefore suggests a powerful compromise.

Christian Therapist Fired for Refusing to Offer Homosexual Sex Therapy

2009-01-30T10:23:00.000-08:00

Authoritarian Sodomy tightened its choke hold on Christian conscience in the formerly free United Kingdom this past week, when a British employment tribunal ruled that a national counseling service rightly fired counselor Gary McFarlane for declining, on grounds of Christian conscience, to offer sex therapy to homosexuals.

Can we dispense with the euphemisms here? What the Relate counseling service was demanding of this Christian counselor was that he generate revenue for the company by offering sodomy lessons to tragically confused clients. And you can be certain that the victorious corporation is tightening its vise on any Christians who remain behind after McFarlane's dismissal.

Gordon Rayner filed this U.K. Telegraph report at www.Telegraph.co.uk

Christian sex therapist 'refused to counsel gay couples'
A Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked after he refused to give sex therapy to homosexual couples has lost his case for unlawful discrimination.
By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter

An employment tribunal ruled that the national counseling service Relate was entitled to dismiss Gary McFarlane after he said that encouraging gay sex went against his devout religious beliefs.

The decision prompted Christian groups to demand a rethink of religious discrimination laws, following a string of other high-profile cases in which courts have found against Christians who claim they have suffered as a result of standing up for their beliefs.

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which supported Mr McFarlane in his claim, said the religious discrimination law was "in danger of becoming a dead letter", while the Christian Institute said there was a growing feeling among churchgoers that religious discrimination laws only applied to Muslims and other minority faiths.

Legal experts suggested the ruling had left discrimination laws in "a confused state" by giving the impression that "gay rights trump Christian rights" when they directly oppose each other.

Mr McFarlane, 47, brought his claim for unfair dismissal after he was sacked in March 2008.

The father of two had joined Relate in 2003 and had given relationship advice to homosexual couples in the past. But in 2006, after he qualified as a psychosexual therapist, he made it clear to his employers that his strong Christian beliefs meant he did not feel able to give sex therapy advice to homosexuals.

Fellow counsellors objected to his stance and claimed his views were homophobic, and in March 2008 he was sacked.

Mr McFarlane, of Bristol, claimed unfair dismissal against the Avon branch of Relate on the grounds of religious discrimination, but an employment tribunal panel unanimously rejected his claim, though the panel decided Mr McFarlane had been wrongfully dismissed as Relate had not followed the correct dismissal procedures.

The panel said Mr McFarlane's claim had failed because: "The claimant was not treated as he was because of his Christian faith, but because (Relate) believed that he would not comply with its policies and that it would have treated anyone else of whom that was believed, regardless of religion, in the same way."

Mr McFarlane's boss at Relate had said during an earlier hearing that he had been sacked because he made it clear that he would not abide by its equal opportunities policy, which states that all clients must be treated in the same way, regardless of sexuality.

After the ruling, Mr McFarlane said: "If I were a Muslim, this would not have happened. But Christians seem to have fewer and fewer rights."

Mrs Williams said: "The law preventing religious discrimination is in danger of becoming a dead letter. It is deeply disturbing that the mere expression of religious beliefs with an inability to give unqualified support to sexual orientation issues means that a Christian can be dismissed with no attempt to provide suitable accommodation for his beliefs."

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: "A lot of public bodies seem to confuse ethnicity with religion and they feel they are able to challenge the views of Christians, but not those of minority faiths. It means Christians feel they are playing second fiddle to other faiths and the laws are not being applied equally."

Mr McFarlane was represented in the case by Paul Diamond, the barrister who also represented Nadia Eweida, the British Airways check-in worker who lost a grievance procedure in 2006 after claiming religious discrimination because she was banned from wearing a cross necklace over her uniform.

A spokesman for Relate said it had not yet received a copy of the judgement and could not comment.

Mr McFarlane's is the latest in a string of cases which have tested the law on religious discrimination. Last year Lillian Ladele, a registrar in Islington, north London, won a claim for unfair dismissal after she was sacked for refusing to perform civil partnerships on religious grounds, but Islington council later successfully appealed against the decision.

In 2007 Andrew McClintock, a Christian magistrate, lost his religious discrimination claim after his employers refused to excuse him from ruling on cases in which vulnerable children might be placed with same-sex foster parents.

Homosexual Brownshirts Launch Wave of Intolerance, Menace in California

2009-01-20T17:18:00.000-08:00

Homosexuals have launched a campaign of intimidation and retaliation against Christians who exercise their First Amendment right to support traditional marriage in California, according to a lawsuit filed by election lawyer James Bopp.

The New York Times reports:

“Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the proposition. “And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.”

So chilling, apparently, that supporters have filed suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento seeking a preliminary injunction of a state election law that requires donors of $100 or more to disclose their names, addresses, occupations and other personal information.

In his suit, which is also being argued by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, Mr. Bopp alleges a wide range of acts against supporters, including “death threats, acts of domestic terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property, harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts.”

Hell to Pay: Intolerant Homosexuals Deploy State Government Against Principled Christians

2009-01-05T19:32:00.000-08:00

There will be Hell to pay if churches in New Jersey, home of disgraced bisexual former Gov. Jim McGreevey, fail to accomodate and cater to homosexual "civil union" ceremonies on church premises.

Charlie Butts wrote in OneNewsNow.com last week that a Methodist Church camp has lost to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights in a federal district court after two lesbians complained to the government agency that the church camp resisted their demand.

Lesbian couple wins suit against Methodist camp
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow
The Methodist Church has lost a round over homosexual unions.

In March 2007 the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association refused to permit two lesbians -- Harriet Bernstein, 67, and Luisa Paster, 61 -- to stage a civil union ceremony at the church-owned Boardwalk Pavilion, and returned their check for $250. Subsequently, says Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, the lesbians filed a legal complaint against group. However, Association officials countered that the decision was based on their religious beliefs.

"That didn't make any difference to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights," says Staver of the group that issued its determination on Monday. "They said there's no First Amendment defense here and in fact the church violated the public accommodation law in New Jersey," the attorney notes. "After New Jersey adopted the same-sex civil union law, no longer could the church allow its facility to be used in ministry to the public because to do so would open them up to these same-sex civil unions."

Staver says that puts the church in a quandary. "The church has really been put in the situation where the clash between the same-sex civil unions and the religious liberty is forcing the church to either violate its own religious freedom or open up its facility to the community," he points out.

The church lost a federal court decision dealing with the same matter, and that case is on appeal. The Camp Meeting Association is represented in the case by the Alliance Defense Fund, which has argued that a Christian organization has a constitutional right to use its facilities in a manner consistent with its beliefs.

Founded in 1869, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is affiliated with the United Methodist Church.

Showdown Between ACLU and Liberty Counsel Over Gideon Bible Distribution

2008-12-11T15:40:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-23T18:43:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-17T19:28:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-16T12:34:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-11T19:09:00.000-08:00

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

2008-10-27T20:26:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-22T07:49:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-27T14:18:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-07-25T18:40:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-20T09:39:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-10T03:05:00.000-07:00

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."