Religious Rights Watch

In what seems like a more and more familiar tale, a high school teacher in San Diego was told by his school board that he could no longer hang signs or banners in his classroom with phrases like "One Nation Under God", "In God We Trust", or "God Bless America". In fact, even a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator", was put on the school district's naughty list.

And it's not as though this was a new thing.  It turns out that the teach in question, Bradley Johnson, had been putting up such signs in his classroom for over twenty-five years without complaint.  San Diego's Ponway Unified School District leadership complained that the signs "over-emphasized" God, "conveyed a Judeo-Christian viewpoint", and that they might "offend" others.  At the same time, teachers in the district were allowed to display signage celebrating or promoting other things, such as gay rights.

We fail to see why anyone (least of all Americans) should be "offended" by things like our national motto or Declaration of Independence.  And, believe it or not, a federal judge in the liberal 9th Circuit agreed.  read more »

In what's starting to look like a case of history repeating itself, a contestant in the upcoming Miss California pageant has let it slip that she's opposed to gay marriage. And liberals are having fits.

In this case, the city council of Beverly Hills - the very city which Lauren Ashley will represent - has condemned her views and is demanding that the pageant not allow her to use the moniker "Miss Beverly Hills" in the competition.

Via Fox News:

Former Miss California Carrie Prejean isn't the only beauty queen open to expressing her objection to same-sex marriage. Miss Beverly Hills 2010 Lauren Ashley is also speaking out in support of traditional nuptials.

Miss Beverly Hills and upcoming Miss California contender Lauren Ashley spoke out to Pop Tarts earlier this week against gay marriage -- and as a result she has been publicly condemned by the City of Beverly Hills.  read more »

In yet another instance of the consequences of redefining the family, the Catholic Archdiocese in Washinton, DC has been forced to discontinue its foster program, as it would be at legal risk for not placing children with homosexual "married" couples.

According to the new DC gay marriage law (which goes into effect on March 2nd), outside organizations that contract to provide services have to recognize gay marriages in Washington.  In other words, the religious rights of Christian groups that don't recognize homosexual "marriage" as being legitimate are being violated due to their faith. 

And of course this is in addition to the impact on the children that are helped by Christian (as opposed to state run) foster care programs, such as this one which has been around for over 80 years.

Come to think of it, this is probably not an "unintended" consequence.

A US Immigration judge has granted political asylum for a family from Germany due to persecution resulting from their choice to home school their kids.

It seems that the German government has an issue with parents who don't send their children to "state" schools, even going to far as to fine or jail those who do home school.  (via the Washington Times...)

The Romeikes home-schooled their children in Germany and
received fines totaling $10,000. On one occasion, Mr. Donnelly said,
police hauled their children off to school. In 2006, the Romeikes
emigrated to Tennessee and continued home schooling their children. Mr.
Donnelly said the family applied for political asylum within three
months of arriving in the U.S.

This is the kind of thing that stems from a mentality that government should have a monopoly on educating children.  It's a mentality that is threatened by a loss of control over messages.  When a government wants to control what children are (and are NOT) taught, there's a motive...and it's a sure thing it's not in your best interest.

This is a story that's both hard to believe and not hard to believe at the same time.

It seems that this past Saturday, a woman who had participated in the March for Life in Washington was told by security guards that she had to remove her pro-life pin that she had on from the march before she entered the building.  She was told that you can't wear religious or political items in a federal building.  (??) Via Lifenews:

...after searching her bag, two guards at the Gallery told her, "You're good to go in, but first you need to remove that pro-life pin.”

"He was indicating the small lime green pin with the message 'impact73.org' and the silhouette of a small hand inside that of a larger hand that I had attached to the lapel of my coat," Duke writes today.

"The pin, they informed me, was a 'religious symbol' and a symbol of a particular political cause and it could not be worn inside a federal building," Duke continues.

"Why, I asked, can I not wear a religious or political symbol inside a federal building? Bringing to bear the full weight of the supreme law of the land, the guards informed that it was a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: The combination of me, wearing a pro-life pin, in a federal building was a violation of the separation of church and state," she explained.  read more »

Columnist Cal Thomas raises a point to ponder in the light of last week's decision by the Supreme Court which (essentially) extended First Amendment rights to corporations and unions.

He points out that, for purposes of the Constitution, the court rightly decided that these entities are comprised of citizens, so they have the rights of citizens when it comes to free speech.

The ruling came the week of the annual March for Life, which draws
thousands to Washington to mark that same court's 1973 Roe v. Wade
ruling. The march has become not so much a protest as an affirmation of
the value of all human life.

What makes the ruling and the march ironic is that the 1973 court,
in essence, downgraded a human fetus to the level of nonperson, while
the modern court has invested "personhood" in corporations. Does anyone
else see a contradiction or at least a moral inconsistency in these two
rulings?

Of course, as Thomas mentions, the difference in conclusions has a lot to do with the court making the decision...and in this case "who" was on the court.  read more »

Supporters of gay marriage in California have now taken their case against that state's marriage amendment to federal court.  At issue is California's Proposition 8, in which voters in 2008 voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Given that this is now a federal case, it will start out in district court, then - no matter who wins or loses - will be appealed to the (liberal) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the US Supreme Court.

In the end, it's not just California's Prop 8 that's at issue, but it will be the definition of marriage in all fifty states.  In other words, what the pro-gay marriage crowd is looking for is the gay marriage equivalent of Roe vs. Wade, where the Supreme Court steps in and sweeps aside citizen passed laws all across the country and short circuits the political process all together.

From the Baptist Press:  read more »

Over the years, Christians and conservatives have lost a number of (what were once considered) liberties via our over-active judiciary.  A trend that has become so strong that many times the mere threat of lawsuit by groups such as the ACLU would result in another loss.  But things are changing.  At least in terms a more successful conservative focus on using the judiciary as a weapon in the culture wars as well.

An example of a recent success comes from North Carolina, where a high school student was prohibited from wearing a shirt with a pro-life message and distributing literature.  One legal letter (and one the threat of a lawsuit one would guess) and the school district backed down.

From the story:

A North Carolina high school is backing down after a pro-life legal group helped a pro-life student who faced a revocation of her free speech rights. Brianna Cardwell wanted to participate in the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity sponsored by Stand True Ministries.

The day is an opportunity for students to wear red tape or armbands to show their solidarity with unborn children who can't speak for themselves.

It features pro-life t-shirts and fliers explaining how abortion kills unborn children and has adversely impacted society.  read more »

Should Christian clubs or oganizations be forced to accept non-Christian members?  That's essentially the question that the US Supreme Court is about to take up.

And it's a question that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the wrong answer to recently... ruling that Christian clubs at universities could not be officially recognized by those schools unless they open up to non-Christian voting members - and even leaders.

Go figure.

The Washington Examiner puts it this way:

Think of it this way: Should a Young Democrats club on a university
campus be compelled to elect Republican officers? Should a student
chapter of PETA be forced to be led by an ardent hunter and taxidermist?

The case revolves around that fact that the group Christian Legal Society has rules that require that its officers and members sign a statement attesting to their Christian faith.  (Imagine!)  Hastings University says they can't do that.  And the Ninth Circuit agreed.  But in a similar case from Chicago, a federal court took the side of the local branch of the same group.  Which brings us to an important test of the 1st Amendment.

I smell another five to four decision in the offing.

A 3rd grade student in New Jersey was recently admonished by her teacher for reading her Bible during class quiet time.  The teacher told the girl that the Bible was not "appropriate reading material" and ordered her to put it away.  The girl then put it in her desk, but the teacher told her she had to put it "in her backpack", (to take it back home).

And, if that weren't bad enough, when the girls mother found out about it, she went to the teacher to complain and, getting no where), went to the school's principal - who backed up the teacher in saying that was "school policy".

The mother finally found someone with some sense when she went to the school district, where she was told the school was wrong and it's fine for her child to bring (and read) the Bible at school.  (The mother wants something in writing...and who can blame her).

And from Massachusetts we have a similar issue where the father of an eight year old boy says his son was sent home from school after he drew a picture showing Jesus on a cross.  After complaining about it and the story became public, the father, who works for the school district as a custodian, has had his hours cut.  And before the kid was "cleared" to go back to school, he was "evaluated" to make sure he wasn't a "threat" to himself or others.  From the story:  read more »