Alicia Acuna

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has ruled that crosses erected to memorialize fallen Utah Highway Patrol officers are unconstitutional. There are currently 14 of the 12 foot, steal crosses on public land throughout the Beehive state.

American Atheists Inc., successfully argued that because crosses are a Christian symbol, they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That these white crosses, which are on public land, with official Utah Highway Patrol logos, give the impression that the government is showing preference to one religion over another. In its ruling, the 10th Circuit states “…these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion.”

The American Defense Fund, a coalition of Christian attorneys, says it is considering its next step for appeal. It could either bring it back to the full court of the 10th Circuit or take it to the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court.

The ADF and the Utah Highway Patrol Association say these crosses are secular memorials displayed to honor the sacrifices made by the officers and their families.

The first cross was erected in 1998. According to Lt Lee Perry, who helped bring the idea to fruition, white crosses were chosen, in part, because when someone driving by sees a white cross on the side of the road, they know that someone died there and that they were not chosen to represent Christianity. Lt Perry, says the purpose is not complex, “It’s a way to honor our friends and comrades”.

David Silverman, the national spokesperson for American Atheists, Inc, the organization that filed the lawsuit in Utah tells Fox News, “To say that they are secular crosses and not Christian? That is just a lie. Everyone who looks at a cross…they say ‘that’s Christian’”. The 10th circuit agreed. But it’s likely this issue will not end in Denver. In response to the ADF considering taking this to the USSC, Silverman told Fox News, “If they bring it to the U.S. Supreme Court to have the Court decide if crosses are not Christian, that will be a waste of time and a waste of Utah’s money”

But the Alliance Defense Fund, says this is about honoring those who gave their lives in the line of duty. In a statement released shortly after the ruling, the ADF said, “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by Utah highway patrol officers and their families. The families of the fallen should be allowed to honor their loved ones as they wish”

The crosses are paid for by the Utah Highway Patrol Association, a private organization that funds the monuments with private dollars. Each of the 14 families approved the use of a cross. According to the Utah’s Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, many of those commemorated were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which does not recognize the Christian cross.

American Atheists Inc has put forth that the officers should have some sort of memorial, just not this one. Silverman adds that his organization has the, “…utmost respect for officers and we didn’t want this fight. How anybody could say crosses are not Christian is beyond all of us. It’s completely inappropriate.”
(more…)

From Redstate

Hot Air has the story about Jennifer Keeton. Keeton, trying to graduate from Augusta State University in Augusta, Georgia, has been told she cannot get certification in counseling unless she abandons orthodox teachings of her Christian faith.

You guessed it — Keeton, a Christian, is not supportive of “gay rights”.

CNN has an interesting roundtable on the case of Jennifer Keeton, who has sued Augusta State University to keep from getting expelled for not repudiating her statements about homosexuality. Keeton expressed her biblical perspective on the subject in and out of class while working toward a degree in counseling, and the school mandated a “remediation plan” that appears to have required her to renounce her Christian doctrine in order to gain a diploma from the school. The school has responded that a bias against homosexuality would disqualify Keeton from certification, a position that would put most Christians in Keeton’s position.

Christians should be more than a little troubled by the University’s bias.

I hope Georgia’s legislators are paying attention. Augusta State’s position seems to be that a bias against Christians is preferable to Christians holding on to orthodox teachings of their faith.

You can call President Bloodworth over at August State at 706-737-1440 and let him know what you think.

also:

Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality
(more…)

URBANA – An adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism at the University of Illinois has lost his teaching job there, and he claims it is a violation of his academic freedom.

Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI’s Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.

Howell has been an adjunct lecturer in the department for nine years, during which he taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. He was also director of the Institute of Catholic Thought, part of St. John’s Catholic Newman Center on campus and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria. Funding for his salary came from the Institute of Catholic Thought.

One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue. In early May, Howell wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students, in preparation for an exam, in which he discusses how the theory of utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts.

“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail, obtained by The News-Gazette. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”

He went on to write there has been a disassociation of sexual activity from morality and procreation, in contradiction of Natural Moral Theory.

The student complaint came in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The author of the e-mail said he was writing on behalf of a friend – a student in Howell’s class, who wanted to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell’s statements about homosexuality, which the student called “hate speech.”
(more…)

The Press-Enterprise reported:

The 76-year-old Mojave Cross war memorial in San Bernardino County’s High Desert has been torn down by vandals, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the religious symbol could remain — at least temporarily — on public land.

Sometime Sunday night, the cross was taken down from its perch atop Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, according to Liberty Institute, a group that represented veterans groups and caretakers of the cross in the recent Supreme Court Case.

“This is an outrage, akin to desecrating people’s graves,” said institute president Kelly Shackelford. “It’s a disgraceful attack on the selfless sacrifice of our veterans. We will not rest until this memorial is re-installed.”

The cross was erected in the 1934 by a veterans group as a tribute to their fallen brethren in World War I. It has been the subject of a decade long court battle between those who want it to remain and those who believe it violates the separation of church and state.

In a split decision late last month, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that the cross must be removed. The High Court remanded the case back to federal district court in Southern California. The ruling was a major victory for proponents of the cross, but the American Civil Liberties Union vowed to renew its opposition to the cross.

From Gateway Pundit

This is unbelievable… Now they won’t allow our seniors to pray before meals.
When did America become a communist regime?

Senior citizens are no longer allowed to pray before meals at the Port Wentworth’s Ed Young Senior Citizens Center near Savannah, Georgia. Local officials say the meals are now provided with federal money and therefore the seniors are not allowed to pray before meals.
WSBTV reported:

Preston Blackwelder proudly showed off a painting of his grandmother that had hung next to the front door of his Port Wentworth home.

She was the woman who led him to God, Blackwelder said Friday.

And with that firm religious footing, Blackwelder said it would be preposterous to stop praying before meals at Port Wentworth’s Ed Young Senior Citizens Center near Savannah because of a federal guideline.

“She would say pray anyway,” Blackwelder said of his grandmother. “She’d say don’t listen.”

But Senior Citizens Inc. officials said Friday the meals they are contracted by the city to provide to Ed Young visitors are mostly covered with federal money, which ushers in the burden of separating church and state.

On Thursday, the usual open prayer before meals at the center was traded in for a moment of silence.

The dilemma is being hashed out by the Port Wentworth city attorney, said Mayor Glenn “Pig” Jones.

Tim Rutherford, Senior Citizens Inc. vice president, said some of his staff recently visited the center and noticed people praying shortly before lunch was served. Rutherford said his company provides meals like baked chicken, steak tips and rice and salads at a cost of about $6 a plate. Seniors taking the meals pay 55 cents and federal money foots the rest of the bill, Rutherford said.

“We can’t scoff at their rules,” he said of federal authorities. “It’s a part of the operational guidelines.”

also:

EU Unveils Unprecedented $1 Trillion Loan Package

This doesn’t sound good…

Europe’s debt crisis is starting to affect the bank funding system. Today the European Union unveiled an unprecedented loan package worth almost $1 trillion.
Bloomberg reported, via Drudge:

Europe’s government debt crisis is starting to infect the bank funding system, driving borrowing costs higher from Asia to the U.S. and threatening to slow the global economic recovery.
(more…)

From Powerline

MSNBC’s ratings are in the toilet, and it isn’t hard to see why. You can sum it up by saying that Keith Olbermann isn’t the network’s stupidest anchorperson. That title must go to Contessa Brewer. This soliloquy strikes me as on a par with the infamous Miss Teen South Carolina candidate:

also:

Freedom of Religion under Attack: It’s coming this way!

Preacher in England jailed for saying homosexuality is a sin

by Andrew Thomas

God save the Queens! Great Britain has always been a bellwether state, warning the US of the burgeoning irrationality, depravity, and all-around political insanity in Anglo-Saxon thinking. But now, even Monty Python couldn’t satirize the Orwellian depths to which the UK nation has sunk.

Orwell himself would be aghast.

England enacted a “Public Order Act” in 1986, which was initially intended to deal with public disorder and violence. The law has since been modified to the extent that it is now a punishable offense for anyone to use “abusive or insulting” language. All that is needed is someone who has been “offended” to report the crime to a “Police Community Support Officer (CPSO)”, i.e., a citizen who yearns to be a little Eichmann (ala Ward Churchill) and is given power over others in the community.

Apparently, there are a number of specialties in these CPSOs. An incident occurred on May 2 in Workington, Cumbria UK where a Baptist street preacher had a heated discussion with a passerby. The female passerby vehemently disagreed with the preacher, who said he believed that homosexuality, along with blasphemy and drunkenness, are sins.

Incensed, the woman approached a CPSO who happened to specialize in speech crimes against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transgenders, and lodged a complaint.

The CPSO informed the preacher that “racist or homophobic” speech is against the law. The preacher was booked and jailed. Given that the legacy media has branded all American Tea Party rhetoric as “racist and homophobic”, imagine what the Obama administration could do with such a law.

We will catch up to Great Britain. It is only a matter of time.

Andrew Thomas

From Powerline

I asked the question here why Christians don’t seem to care about their fellow Christians who are subject to persecution abroad, including numerous instances of mass murder. Here is another such instance, which took place over the weekend in Egypt:

Muslims attacked a community center and burned several homes belonging to Coptic Christians in northwestern Egypt over the weekend, injuring 23 people, in a rampage that a local bishop said was incited by a radical Muslim preacher.

The rioting began Friday when a group of young men hurled rocks at the church community center in Marsa-Matruh, a city along Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. The attacks then spread to nearby homes and left behind destroyed cars and other property. …

The church’s local bishop, Father Bejemy, said…that the rioters were responding to a Friday prayer sermon at a nearby mosque calling for jihad against infidels, a reference to non-Muslims among extremists.

The bishop said the attackers broke the community center’s gate, several windows and destroyed trees. Later, they lobbed firebombs at Christian homes and destroyed cars, he said. A group of Copts took refuge in the community center and were holed up there for 10 hours while security forces brought the situation under control.
(more…)

From Powerline

In a number of places around the world, it is open season on Christians. We read of Christians burned out of their homes and slaughtered in Pakistan. Most recently, at least 500 Christians were murdered in Nigeria. The attackers in all cases are Muslims, inspired by the warlike message of their Prophet. AFP reports on the Nigerian attacks:

UN chief Ban Ki-moon and Washington led calls for restraint on Monday after the slaughter of more than 500 Christians in Nigeria, as survivors told how the killers chopped down their victims.

Funerals took place for victims of the three-hour orgy of violence on Sunday in three Christian villages close to the northern city of Jos, blamed on members of the mainly Muslim Fulani ethnic group. …

“We have over 500 killed in three villages and the survivors are busy burying their dead,” said state information commissioner Gregory Yenlong. “People were attacked with axes, daggers and cutlasses — many of them children, the aged and pregnant women.”

Do you remember the “massacre” at Jenin? Of course: Palestinians initially claimed that 500 had been killed, but it turned out that there was no massacre after all. In Nigeria, on the other hand, no one disputes that more than 500 Christians were slaughtered by Muslims. So where is the outrage? I don’t know what denomination those Nigerian Christians were, but Lutherans are the most numerous Christian denomination in Africa. I’m a Lutheran, but I have never heard a single word from any church source, local or national, about the mass murder of African Christians. No one seems to care.

No doubt readers can refer us to some Christian sources–evangelical, most likely–who have tried to draw attention to the plight of Christians in Africa, the Middle East and Asia who are being exterminated. But any such effort has wholly failed to gain traction in the “mainstream” Christian community.

Why? I can’t explain it. Maybe “mainstream” Christianity is dead, except as an appendage of secular liberal opinion. Maybe, as the world’s largest religion, Christianity has become so diffused that New World Christians don’t much relate to their co-religionists in Africa and Asia. I don’t know. What I do know is that it is much more dangerous to publish a cartoon of Mohammed than to slice apart a Christian with a machete.

also:

Does Hollywood Make You Stupid?

It seems that way. Tom Hanks is one of Hollywood’s more respectable denizens, but that doesn’t save him from this remarkably dim-witted exchange, featured in the current issue of Time, as dissected by John Nolte at Big Hollywood. The subject is Hanks’s new HBO series on World War II in the Pacific. This is how the Time story ends:
(more…)

from Flopping Aces

from the AP

A Texas college campus is locked in a fierce debate after a group of students launched the “smut for smut” campaign, trading bibles and other religious texts for porn, MyFoxSanAntonio.com reported.

Atheist students at the University of Texas at San Antonio announced that any student over the age of 18 will receive pornographic materials if they trade in religious materials, according to MyFoxSanAntonio.com.

Leaders of this atheist campaign allege that porn is no worse than what’s written in religious texts.

A university spokesman says that this controversial cause is completely legal, though he admits a majority of the students on campus do not agree with it, according to MyFoxSanAntonio.com.

The group will continue its activities on campus through the middle of the week, according to the site. (more…)

By Brujo Blanco

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Ratified 12/15/1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is something going on in this country that should be addressed and addressed seriously and aggressively. Whenever there is a legal question regarding religious freedom or the activities of a church one should read the 1st Amendment literally as it is stated above. This part of the constitution is a restriction on what government can do regarding religion, speech, press, right to assemble, and to petition government for a redress of grievances. The consitution does not in fact place any restriction on religion.

The problem we are having regarding this freedom is that this concept of “wall of separation of church and state” is being used to identify the 1st Amendment and use it to stifle or control the free practice of religion. As far as I am concerned that no government entity to include the courts have any legal jurisdiction over religious activities. Of course no right is absolute and no group should be allowed to do harm to others.

In California there was Proposition 8 which defines marriage as a union of man and woman not Adam and Steve. This really sticks in the craw of the pro-homo groups. These groups for some reason believe that if you do not believe what they do you should be vilified and run through a legal gauntlet. Now the people attempting to overrule the will of the people are using the courts to intimidate churches and pastors that do not believe the way that they do. Since the beginning of Christianity we Christians have been addressing the cultural issues of the time from a biblical point of view. Now in California several pastors have been ordered by the federal court to appear and present information regarding their associations, sermons, and to provide their sermon notes. When I read this in an Article written by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) I about hit the ceiling. Now we have federal courts wanting to review the content of sermons. This would also be the judging of free speech based on content. Now when I hear that something of this nature is being reviewed by a court that means that there is a possibility that the courts will issue orders and restrictions. Anytime one goes to court one is in jeopardy of having something go wrong. The ACLJ will be appearing in court in an attempt to quash the subpoenas.

Can you imagine a church having to answer such queries? What legal authority does any government entity have to get involved in reviews of sermons?

I believe that there is really no conspiracy to violate the construction. I believe that it is simply the left keeping in tune with their ideology. Hopefully we will no see a future wherein a pastor and a church has to have doctrine and sermons reviewed for legal sufficiency. Pastors also have free speech rights in accordance with the constitution. Should they be restricted and controlled because they are preachers? One should understand that the left in many instances see churches as dangerous institutions. I suppose from their viewpoint it churches are dangerous.
(more…)

Albert Mohler’s sidekick Russel Moore denounced the Obama Effigy as “Satanic”. Was this theologian as outspoken in condemning similar outrageous attacks against other political figures such President Bush and Sarah Palin? More importantly, would he now care to speak out against the Founding Fathers for similar protests against King George during the Revolutionary War, or is this form of protest only immoral when directed against a Black person?

New York City health officials in a pamphlet are teaching junkies the proper method for shooting up dope. Yet it must be pointed out that this is the jurisdiction where scholastic bakesales are on the verge of prohibition and where, if city officials had their way, table salt would be frowned upon apparently more now than hard narcotics.

French thought police plot to invade private homes. This is to be done in the name of preventing “psychological violence” by criminalizing robust domestic verbal disagreements. However, what advocates of this law might not be telling you is that, to the left-leaning man-haters out there, this offense consists of little more than simply disagreeing with a woman, verbally boring into a woman during a spat started by a woman, or merely speaking to one when they’ve basically told you to shutup.

It should be interesting to see how this law plays out. For you see, France is being overrun by Islamic immigrants and it is part of their religion to beat their wives and even kill them when they get out of line. Since France is a Western European social democracy, in most instances these multiculturalists lack the spine to declare that a foreign culture is in the wrong. Therefore, what will happen will be that the Muslims will continue to do whatever it is they do to their women and it will be the European male that will be further denuded for fear of criminal prosecution.

A major university is in a tizzy that only 20% of bicyclists are women. It is amazing the kinds of things that will set the Leftist mind into a hand-wringing depression. Before it is all over with, men will be chewed out for doing even environmentally conscious things.

A second grader was suspended and ordered to have a psychological evaluation for drawing a picture of Christ upon the cross for an assignment about what reminded the student about the holidays. Had the lad placed his art work in a vat of urine he could qualify for a government grant or, if he peed on it himself, he could get his own HBO sitcom. School officials claim the child is guilty of drawing a “violent picture”. Newsflash, boys — unless you want them emasculated and docile — draw violent pictures. With China on the move around the world and the Towelheads constantly on the rampage, these scholastic sisses better pray boys keep drawing violent pictures if they want this great country to survive as the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
(more…)

This was only Obama’s first Christmas in the Oval Office. Yet the President has already tried to de-Christ Christmas in at least two instances.

It has come to public’s attention that the White House considered not putting up its Nativity display. Instead, plans were considered for a “more inclusive” Christmas.

G.K. Chesterton said “Religious liberty might suppose to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.” So in the vain attempt to feign a posture of expansive sensitivity, the Obama administration was on the verge of excluding those who had someone sitting on the throne of their hearts other than Barack Obama.

The President provided more insight into his theology at the lighting of the National Christmas Tree on the Ellipse just beyond the White House. Obama said, “Tonight, we celebrate a story that is as beautiful as it is simple. This story of a child born far from home to parents guided only by faith, but who would ultimately spread a message that has endured for more than 2000 years — that…we are each called to love one another as brother and sister.”

That is only part of the story. While Christ did come into the world to teach us that we are to love one another, more importantly, that love is only possible as a result of the part of His message that Obama deliberately omitted. That is that Christ came into the world to die for our sins and to rise from the dead so that whosoever would believe in Him would have everlasting life.

However, Obama is not even content to allow Christians to bask for a moment in the glory of a watered down version of their holiday as something unique this particular belief system has given to the world. He has to take that away from them as well, and in so doing, Obama reveals the most dangerous aspects of his worldview.
(more…)

Most Americans would agree that freedom of conscience ranks among our most cherished liberties. As such, the state should protect this particular right by almost any means necessary and reasonable (especially for citizens).

In California, an initiative has been undertaken to get a ballot before voters to determine the propriety of Christmas music in California public schools. Within the measure is a clause that would require schools to notify parents 21 days before the specified tunes would be played or performed so that students can opt out of being exposed to such material.

Those having embraced a rigorous interpretation regarding the separation of church and state will applaud the measure as a enlightened compromise as these voices will be among the first to point out that, in these swinging days of free thought, not everyone embraces the Christianity espoused by these Yuletide harmonies. One must ask then would the exponents of the unsullied conscience be as outspoken in defense of those wanting to be excused from exposure to more progressivist causes and material.

Absolutarian relativists claim that, in order to ensure the scholastic neutrality of the classroom, not even a whiff of religious material can be permitted to waft across young impressionable minds. That might be what is claimed in theory, but the reality falls far short as an exclusionary objectivity is applied only to Christianity with other worldviews and religions actually imposed upon students.

Any rational person will admit that, in order to have the most comprehensive understanding of the world possible, one must have an understanding of religion as one of history’s most influential motivating forces. However, there is a point at which education becomes advocacy.

For example, it has already been stated that even if authorized, traditional Christmas music will be categorized as quasi-subversive in nature as one has to admit exposure to these lyrics could potentially alter the very spiritual identity of those exposed to them. However, such caution is not exercised in regards to Islam.

According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled “Islamic studies required in California district” posted 1/2/02, students there are required to learn about this prominent world religion. However, students were not going to be doing this via the traditional social studies methodology of reading a standard text detached in tone about the tenets of this system of belief and its impact upon the world in terms of history, geography, and culture. Rather, the curriculum required students to live out Islam. This was to be achieved by having students memorize Koranic verses, praying in the name of Allah, adopting an Islamic name, and staging a pretend jihad.
(more…)

(KTVI-FOX2now.com) –

Where Should Schools Draw The Line?

This is the Christmas season. A time for Christians to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. But kids are now getting into trouble when bringing those beliefs into the classroom. A third grader in Old Bridge, New Jersey got in trouble for reading her Bible in class during quiet time. Her teacher sent her to the principal’s office. Michelle Jordat is the child’s mother, “She was crying, upset and hurt, because she was not able to read her Bible.” Parents rallied around the 8-year-old girl and her mother. As a result, the principal at the public school apologized.

Another 8-year-old child in trouble for religious reasons, this time in Taunton, Massachusetts. The second grade boy was sent home from school and ordered to get a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick figure of Jesus on a cross.

Chester Johnson is the child’s father, “It didn’t raise an eyebrow to me. Obviously it raised an eyebrow with the school.”

Chester Johnson says his son has special needs. The boy drew this picture when his teacher asked him to draw something that reminded him of Christmas. He says the teacher thought the image was too violent, “There was no harm intended in that picture, they ran with it.”

Toni Saunders with the Associated Advocacy Center, says, “It’s definitely an overreaction, but also zero tolerance has changed the face of the United States.”
(more…)

One of the shortcomings I remember the most about the Christian elementary school I attended was how a number of the less-than dedicated educators would punish all of the students for the misbehavior of a single pupil. To this day, I remain convinced this had more to do with lazy teachers preferring not to mess around with recess than correcting actually delinquency.

As miniature societies, the dynamics of schools often reflect the processes that govern nations and countries. Unfortunately, the good students — or rather citizens in the macrocosmic case — are having something that is by every right their’s taken away just because those in charge don’t want to deal with those out to ruin things for everyone.

For nearly 15 years (or at least since I’ve been writing about the topic annually), Christians and allied conservatives have waged a noble effort against secularists claiming the First Amendment, through an expansionist interpretation of the Separation Clause, forbids the erection of Nativity scenes and even less conspicuously devout Christmas symbols on public property.

Since Christmas has become a pivotal component of our culture, most Americans instinctively recoil at efforts to banish the beloved winter festival even if they are not particularly religious. Thus to be successful, secularists realized they would need to pursue a different strategy.

One of the foundational dictums (feigning a posture of sophistication, those of this mindset eschew the notion of creeds) of radical ecumenicalism is that, if you can’t beat them, join them. However, the ecumenicalist does not seek union or compromise with the more thoroughgoing traditionalist for the purposes of common ground but rather to eventually wear down the traditionalist to the point where the traditionalist capitulates to the original demands of the ecumenicalist.
(more…)

From Flopping Aces

L-R: Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy, President Rev. Patrick Mahoney, of the Christian Defense Coalition and Father James Heyd hold a prayer service in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington. Today the high court will hear oral arguments in a case on involving the building of a memorial with a cross by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in a remote area within what is now a federal preserve.
Mark Wilson-Getty Images

Is anyone really damaged by seeing the 10 Commandments displayed on a government building? Are any of you offended when you see a Christmas tree in a public square? When the White House hosts an Easter egg hunt each year, as well as iftar dinner and menorah lighting? Are your feelings hurt because we have national holidays that are Christian?

Why?

Religious expression is part of this nation’s history. The jihadist crusade of the ACLU and militant secular extremists is beyond reason in its successful attacks over the last several decades against public expression of Christian traditions and national heritage that has been a part of this country’s 200-plus year history.

Today, the Supreme Court began deliberations over the Mojave Desert Cross:

At issue was a cross that sits atop Sunrise Rock in a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve. Since 1934, the cross has existed, in one form or another, as a war memorial. Different court documents refer to it as 5 to 8 feet tall.

A decade ago, it came under legal attack from a former park service employee who, though a Catholic, thought it was inappropriate to favor one religion over another in the preserve. The National Park Service had turned down a request to have a Buddhist symbol erected nearby.

A federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the stand-alone display of the cross in the national preserve was unconstitutional and, further, Congress’ move to transfer it to the private VFW did not solve the problem.

The Obama administration, joining with the VFW, urged the high court to uphold the display of the cross now that it is in private hands.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan said that the “sensible action by Congress” to give the VFW control of the cross and the land under it solved the 1st Amendment problem. The cross is no longer on government land and under government control, she said.

“It’s VFW’s choice” how to preserve it and maintain it now, she said.

Not all of the justices sounded convinced. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens noted that the Mojave cross was designated as a national memorial and that Congress said it must be preserved as a cross to honor America’s war dead. If not, the land and the cross would revert to government control, they said.

Eliasberg argued that the transfer was an obvious ploy to maintain the cross after it had been declared unconstitutional by a federal court.

He agreed that crosses in a national cemetery would not pose a constitutional problem because other religious symbols, such as a Star of David for Jewish soldiers, are included as well.

By the end of the hour, it was not clear what issue the justices would decide. They could decide whether the transfer of the cross to the VFW solved the legal problem. Or they could go further back and decide whether it was constitutional to erect the cross on public land.

Some lawyers thought the justices could focus on whether the original plaintiff, former park service employee Frank Buono, had legal standing to object to the cross. But that issue was hardly mentioned in the court Wednesday.

It will probably be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of Salazar vs. Buono.

also:

Professor Flip-Flops On Global Warming, Threatens Lawsuit To Keep Himself Off Documentary

Whats that old saying? The cover up is worse then the actual crime….something along those lines. Well, here’s a new video from the film Not Evil, Just Wrong in which Professor Schneider of Stanford University tries to explain why a few decades ago he was the leading town crier over the coming ice age but now has Al Gore’s back on global warming.

Problem is, after the interview the Professor and Stanford both sent lawyers to the makers to order them to cut his footage out. (h/t The Hope For America)

Why send lawyers to threaten the filmmakers? The only one who is at fault for being so knee deep in leftist propaganda you fall all over yourself for the latest, greatest, climate scaremongering is yourself Professor Schneider.

by Laryn

More creeping socialism…
Democrats in government have banned religious ornaments from the Capital Christmas Tree this year.

O! Obama Tree,
O! Obama Tree…

At least they are still calling it a Christmas tree… They are, aren’t they?
Lifesite News reported, via FOX Nation:

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) called on Arizona state and federal officials on Monday to stop enforcing a requirement prohibiting the state’s schoolchildren from expressing religious viewpoints through Christmas themes while decorating ornaments for the 2009 Capitol Christmas Tree.

Arizona was chosen this year to present 4,000 handcrafted ornaments made by elementary, middle-school, and high-school students to decorate Washington, D.C.’s annual Christmas tree.

Guidelines for the ornaments include specifications for their size, weight, composition, and the directive that “Ornaments cannot reflect a religious or political theme… Instead share your interpretation of our theme ‘Arizona’s Gift, from the Grand Canyon State.’”

In a letter to federal and state officials, including Arizona Governor Janice Brewer, ADF attorneys demanded that they abandon the discrimination against religious viewpoints.

“Banning Christmas from the Capitol Christmas tree is just absurd. Christian students shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their religious beliefs,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Jonathan Scruggs.

“The First Amendment does not allow government officials to exclude schoolchildren’s ornaments for the capitol’s Christmas tree merely because they communicate a religious viewpoint.”

(more…)

The link is here.

BEL AIR, Maryland – October 20, 2008 – A county in Maryland has agreed to halt enforcement of a sign ordinance cited when members of a team of pro-life protesters were arrested, shackled and strip-searched while expressing their opposition to abortion.

According to a statement from the Alliance Defense Fund, a consent agreement has been reached that will halt enforcement of the ordinance while its constitutionality is argued in federal court.

“It is unconstitutional to require small groups of Christians to obtain permits to exercise their First Amendment rights in a public area like the one involved in this case,” ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said. “Police used this permit requirement as part of their justification for the unacceptable treatment of our clients, who simply desired to share their pro-life message.”

The enforcement suspension was outlined in an agreement approved by a federal judge hearing the dispute. It prohibits Harford County from requiring protesters with hand-held signs to get a permit first.

In August, a dozen police officers handcuffed peaceful participants in Defend Life’s “Face the Truth” Pro-Life Tour and then denied them a reason for their arrests.

Three young female participants – including teenagers – were subjected to two rounds of strip searches after being charged with loitering, disorderly conduct and failure to obey a lawful order, charges which later were dropped. (more…)