End Times Authors Warn of Potential Threat to Religious Freedom in U.S.

“End Times” authors Tim LaHaye and Craig Parshall say the Obama administration may be killing religious freedom by redefinition.

In a statement posted on their website this past week, the co-authors of the political thriller Edge of Apocalypse claim there is a shadow growing over religious freedom in America.

“We are talking about the Obama Administration’s subtle, but apparently deliberate use of a language-sleight-of-hand, substituting the phrase ‘freedom of worship’ for ‘freedom of religion,’” they wrote this past Tuesday.

According to the fiction series authors, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have “consistently” used the new phrase in several speeches in recent months.

They pointed to how the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom also noted the shift and raised a flag on it in its 2010 annual report.

“Because of the policy implications of using ‘freedom of worship’ language, USCIRF urges President Obama, Secretary Clinton and other high-ranking U.S. government officials to return to invoking or embracing ‘freedom of religion or belief’ or similar language in all public statements and stress the universal nature of these and other rights,” the bipartisan body stated.

“In doing so, they should also explicitly affirm their commitment to broad protection of the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief in all its manifestations,” it added.

Though some might consider their observations as nit-picking or overanalyzing, LaHaye and Parshall made a case for their warning, explaining that the phrase “freedom of worship” follows an international concept that departs from the United States’ First Amendment understanding of religious freedom.

Under international law, they say, “worship” is a limited right, and connotes activities within a church body, but can exclude public evangelism.

The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, for example, protects “teaching, practice, worship and observance” but does not protect public preaching. The United Nation’s 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance uses the same approach on matters of religion.

“Article 9 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms allows evangelism to be banned on the basis of protecting ‘public order,’” note the authors, one of which – Parshall – is a religious rights attorney and the general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters.

“In 1997 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that under Article 9 Christians could be prosecuted for efforts to evangelize,” they added.

Alleging that the Obama administration is edging America closer to a global approach in matters of religion, LaHaye and Parshall recalled the future “Babylon” in the Bible’s book of Revelation, which they say has three aspects, “much like a three-legged stool.”

“[T]wo of them are a global economic system and a global political system. The third? A global unification of religion,” they stated.

And while they admit that the stage for that to be set seems improbable, the authors suggest it won’t be when “Christian evangelism is finally outlawed – or something worse.”

Furthermore, the authors say their new fictional novel, Edge of the Apocalypse, “is beginning to look more and more like the headlines of today rather than forecasts about the future.”

Published in April, Edge of the Apocalypse is a political thriller laced with End Times prophecy. Set in the near future, Edge of Apocalypse chronicles the beginning of “The End” – the events leading up to the Apocalypse foretold in Revelation.

Though Parshall has traditionally written legal-suspense novels and co-authored historical novels, LaHaye is no stranger in the “End Times” community. LaHaye is the creator and co-author of the popular Left Behind series, the 16-novel series that has been adapted into three action thriller films.

More than 65 million copies of the series’ novels have been sold since the first published in 1995.

The series also inspired the controversial PC game “Left Behind: Eternal Forces” and its sequel, “Left Behind: Tribulation Forces.”

A fourth film adaptation of the series is currently being discussed by Cloud Ten Pictures.

Courtesy of http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100718/end-times-authors-warn-of-potential-threat-to-religious-freedom/index.html

Cops: Kids can’t pray at U.S. Supreme Court

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

U.S. Supreme Court

 

A Christian private-school teacher is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow constitutionally protected prayer outside the court building after her class was “abruptly” ordered to stop praying on the grounds.

Maureen Rigo, a teacher at Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona, took her class to the Supreme Court complex May 5 for an educational tour.  

The students stood off to the side at the bottom steps of the Oval Plaza, bowed their heads and quietly prayed amongst themselves, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal team Rigo contacted after the incident.  

“Even though they were not obstructing traffic, not demonstrating and praying quietly in a conversational tone so as to not attract attention, a court police officer approached the group and told them to stop praying in that public area immediately,” ADF reported. “The prayer was stopped based on a statute, 40 U.S.C. §6135, which bars parades and processions on Supreme Court grounds.”  

That statute reads as follows:  

It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

According to the Sonoran News, the police tapped Rigo on the shoulder and said, “Ma’am, I’m not going to tell you that you can’t pray, but you can’t do it here. Please go somewhere else.” 

A message left by WND at Wickenburg Christian Academy hadn’t been returned at the time of this report. 

ADF sent a letter to U.S. Supreme Court officials today, imploring them to stop their police officers from barring people from quietly praying outside the court.  

“Mrs. Rigo was not engaging in a parade, procession or assembly. She was speaking in a conversational level to those around her with her head bowed,” a letter signed by ADF attorney Nathan Kellum explains. “There is no reason to silence Mrs. Rigo’s activities since these activities do not attract attention, create a crowd or give off the appearance of impartiality. The ban on public prayers cannot hope to survive First Amendment scrutiny.”  

ADF argues that the wording of the statute cited by the police officer does not apply.  

“The wording of the statute does not seemingly contemplate quiet prayers like Mrs. Rigo’s,” Kellum states. “Such prayers are ‘not designed or adopted to bring’ Mrs. Rigo ‘into public notice.’ Indeed, Mrs. Rigo’s prayers were not communicated to anyone outside of God and her very small group.”  

The group noted that the prayers are akin to routine conversations that take place during Supreme Court tours every day and that Rigo’s class was not engaging in a parade, procession or assembly.  

“The only logical explanation for prohibiting Mrs. Rigo’s activities, while allowing other conversations, pertains to the viewpoint of Mrs. Rigo’s expression,” Kellum argued. “[T]he Supreme Court police have not targeted a subject matter or class of expression, but targeted a particular viewpoint for censorship. They have singled out and censored religious prayer as the only form of conversation to be silenced.”  

The letter states that the prayer ban “exemplifies viewpoint discrimination” in which “the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers” in violation of the First Amendment.  

In the letter, the ADF demanded that court officials allow Rigo to return and “engage in conversation-level prayers directed to her nearby companions and God.”  

Police have three weeks to respond. If they don’t, ADF has threatened legal action to protect Rigo’s constitutional rights.

“Christians shouldn’t be silenced for exercising their beliefs through quiet prayer on public property,” ADF senior counsel Nate Kellum said in a statement. “The last place you’d expect this kind of obvious disregard for the First Amendment would be on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court itself, but that’s what happened.”

WND has reported on a series of efforts to remove mention of God and references to the religious faith and influences of the Founding Fathers from government grounds.

In 2008, an “oversight” at the nation’s $600-million-plus Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C., left the national motto “In God We Trust” absent from the historical displays and at one point prompted WND columnist and veteran actor Chuck Norris to ask if he could help correct the situation.

That “oversight” was fixed in 2009 after U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and 108 members of Congress expressed concern the historical content was inaccurate, prompting the committee’s determination to make changes.

Also, WND reported in 2006 when Chaplain Todd DuBord, who works with Norris’ TopKick Productions, told WND he was more than startled during his visits to the U.S. Supreme Court and two other historic locations to discover the stories of the nation’s heritage had been sterilized of Christian references.

He visited the courthouse and was surprised that what the tour guides were telling him wasn’t what he was seeing.

“Having done some research (before the trip), I absolutely was not expecting to hear those remarks,” which, he had told WND, “denied history.”

DuBord wrote to the Supreme Court and several other groups, asking them to restore the historic Christian influences to their presentations. He said he was most disturbed by what appeared to be revisionism in the presentations given to visitors at the Supreme Court.

There, he said, his tour guide was describing the marble frieze directly above the justices’ bench: “Between the images of the people depicting the Majesty of the Law and Power of Government, there is a tablet with 10 Roman numerals, the first five down the left side and the last five down the right. This tablet represents the first 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights,” she said.

“The 10 what?” was DuBord’s thought.

Dubord began researching and found a 1975 official U.S. Supreme Court handbook, prepared under the direction of Mark Cannon, administrative assistant to the chief justice. It said, “Directly above the Bench are two central figures, depicting Majesty of the Law and Power of Government. Between them is a tableau of the Ten Commandments.”

Further research produced information that in 1987 the building was designated a National Historic Landmark and came under control of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Under the new management the handbook was rewritten in 1988. The Ten Commandments reference was left out of that edition, and nothing replaced it.

The next reference found said only that the frieze “symbolizes early written laws.” Then in 1999, the handbook refered to the depiction as the “Ten Amendments to the Bill of Rights.”

“The more I got into [his research], the more I saw Christianity had been abandoned from history,” he said.

When DuBord asked, his recent tour guide denied there were any Ten Commandments representations in the Supreme Court building.

Courtesy of http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=179585

Alliance Defense Fund Demands that University of Illinois Immediately Reinstate Professor Fired For Teaching Facts about Catholic Doctrine on Homosexual Behavior in Class About Catholic Doctrine

 

(CNSNews.com) – The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, has given the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign until the end of Friday to re-instate a professor who was relieved of his teaching duties following complaints he engaged in “hate speech” by teaching students about Catholic teaching on homosexuality in a course about Catholicism.
 
In a letter to University officials, ADF attorneys say that Dr. Kenneth Howell lost his position simply for teaching the facts about a Catholic moral teaching, and that University officials have until July 16 to respond to demands that the university immediately reinstate Howell to his teaching position, or face court action. 

While teaching the course “Introduction to Catholicism” at the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, they say, Howell expressed Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality in an e-mail to his students, prompting a student complaint to the University that read in part, “allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable.”
 
“We are gravely disappointed that the University would succumb to such a ‘heckler’s veto,’ jettison principles of academic freedom, and violate Dr. Howell’s First Amendment freedoms.  And we insist that he be reinstated to his teaching position immediately,” the letter said.

“We are seriously going to consider a lawsuit if they do not back down from this.  It was clear cut censorship of a professor simply for expressing a politically incorrect view in the classroom on the subject that the class was about,” Jordan Lawrence, the Alliance Defense Fund attorney representing Howell, told CNSNews.com.

Howell’s May 4 e-mail, obtained and published by the Champaign News-Gazette, discussed the differences between utilitarianism and Natural Moral Law in judging the morality of homosexuality.

Howell explained to his students that Natural Moral Law, “says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act.”
 
Howell further states in the e-mail: “Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex.  Why?  Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology.  Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.”

In the email, Howell described both the utitlitarian perspective and the natural law perspective and specifically told the students he was not asking them to take a position on the morality of homosexual behavior. “All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult,” he wrote. ”That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions.”
 
Howell’s dismissal came after an e-mail from an unnamed student was sent to the head of the Department of Religion at the university, complaining that Howell “allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma.” 
 
“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another,” the student e-mail said. “The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the offical Roman Catholic teachings, homosexual acts “are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved.”  

In a 1986 letter, “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote: “Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living.”

Ironically, the U of I Department of Religion had congratulated Howell in the previous school semester for his “excellent teaching” in the Introduction to Catholicism course, as ranked by students in the Fall of 2009. 
 
But Howell was informed in late May of this year by Dr. Robert McKim, head of the religion department, that he would no longer be able to teach classes at the University.
 
“This kind of heavy handed authoritarian response to an opinion that some anonymous person found objectionable is simply not the way classrooms should function at universities in the United States,” Lorence told CNSNews.com
 
According to Lorence, the university officials who dismissed Howell have been vague as to the exact cause of his dismissal. He said no mention of work performance or inaccuracies in presenting material to students were when Dr. Howell was dismissed. Lorence told CNSNews.com that the complaints about “hate speech” seem to be the direct cause of the dismissal.
 
Dr. Michael Hogan, who started his tenure as president of the University of Illinois in May of this year, has responded to individuals concerned about Dr. Howell’s dismissal via an open e-mail letter:
 
“Let me begin by thanking you for expressing your concerns,” the letter states. “Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions. It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.
 
“I learned of this action on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campus late last week and immediately asked Chancellor Robert Easter, who oversees the campus, to provide me with a briefing on the matter.  I want to assure you that the University administration shares my commitment to the principles of academic freedom.  At the same time, we do believe it’s important to fully investigate all of the details related to this situation. As I’m sure you’re aware, it is sometimes the case that public reports may convey only part of the story. I think it important to reserve judgment until I have all of the facts and I hope you’ll agree.
 
“We have asked the UIUC Senate’s standing Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to immediately review this action. This is the mechanism on the campus through which these matters should be vetted. We expect this review to be completed very soon. By using our channels of shared governance and review, we are in the best position to make informed decisions that afford a fair process for all.”
 
The Alliance Defense Fund letter, meanwhile, says the First Amendment protects faculty speech in the classroom, and lists several federal court precedents protecting faculty speech. The letter also points out that “decades of Supreme Court precedent” prohibit the University from firing Dr. Howell simply because his speech was controversial.

The ADF letter reiterates several times that Howell was fired for teaching Catholic doctrine in a class about Catholic doctrine, and says that, “the University’s only reason for removing Dr. Howell is that other students, faculty, and staff disliked his speech.”

According to the University of Illinois Academic Staff Handbook: “Academic freedom is essential to the functioning of a university. It applies to its teaching, research, and public service and involves both faculty and students.”

The handbook goes on to say, “Faculty members are expected to instruct their assigned courses in a manner consistent with the scheduled time, course content, and course credit as approved by the faculty.  Within these constraints, they are entitled to freedom in the classroom in developing and discussing according to their areas of competence the subjects that they are assigned.”

A decision by the university Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure may be forthcoming.  

Courtesy of http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69516

Atheists Break Out New Ritual Tool: The Blow-Dryer

Wielding a blow-dryer, a leading atheist conducted a mass “de-baptism” of fellow non-believers and symbolically dried up the offending waters that were sprinkled on their foreheads as young children.

At the annual American Atheists Convention, one of atheism’s premier provocateurs, Edwin Kagin, faced the crowd and raised high a hairdryer labeled “Reason and Truth.”

At the annual American Atheists Convention, one of atheism’s premier provocateurs, Edwin Kagin, faced the crowd and raised high a hairdryer labeled “Reason and Truth.”

Said one woman who travelled from Cincinnati to undergo the de-baptism, “I was baptized Catholic. I don’t remember any of it at all.” The woman, Cambridge Boxterman, 24, added, “According to my mother I screamed like a banshee, and those are her words, so you can see that even as a young child I didn’t want to be baptized. It’s not fair. I was born atheist and they were forcing me to become Catholic.”

Kagin, who is American Atheists’ national legal director, firmly believes that regardless of one’s religious beliefs, each person has the right to say or do what he or she wants, provided it is within the law. In the past, he has reportedly called out parents who subject their children to strict fundamentalist religious education, referring to it as child abuse.

“It is teaching children that the world works in other ways than it does,” he said. “This can be extremely dangerous.”

“They are practicing child abuse in teaching that the world operates in ways other than it does,” he told the convention crowd. “And in my opinion, they are engaged in terrorism by weakening our nation and our understanding of science and things with which we can defend ourselves and progress. If it had not been for these fools we could have been at the stars 2,000 years ago.”

Kagin, author of “Baubles of Blasphemy,” has a history of behaving in ways that elicit a rise from God-fearing people. He’s known to have asked female atheists to dress in burqas and perform a song, “Back in their Burquas Again,” he’s referred to Mary Magdalene as a deranged hooker and he’s called the Holy Eucharist “Swallow the Leader.”

Kagin said religion should not be used to determine how people ought to live their lives. “They’re doing harm to women who want to control their own bodies and their own reproductive rights,” he said. “They’re doing harm to a great number of people and they’re saying that ‘what we’re doing is sacred and inviolate. We can do whatever we want to your rights, and you can not react.’ That’s what they’re doing.”

It is in this same spirit that Kagin performs the de-baptism.

One of atheism’s premier provocateurs, Edwin Kagin, right, with his son, Stephen Kagin, who is a minister.

(Courtesy Edwin Kagan)

Standing at a podium wearing a long brown monk’s robe, Kagin read with the oratorical skill of a preacher from a set of pages in his hand and invited participants to come forward to be de-baptized.

He recited a few mock-Latin syllables, to the audience’s amusement. An assistant produced a large hairdryer, labeled “Reason and Truth,” and handed it to Kagin. The man who’d elected himself to be de-baptized stood before him. Kagin turned on the hairdryer, blowing the hot air in his face in an attempt to symbolically dry up his baptismal waters.

“Come forward now and receive the spirit of hot air that taketh away the stigma and taketh away the remnants of the stain of baptismal water,” Kagin shouts.

Atheists poke fun at baptisms in this ceremony, saying they believe their waving around a hairdryer holds the same level of magical and spiritual powers as does the baptismal ceremony.

Kagin said that many people have undergone de-baptism.”Many have taken it as somewhat of a joke, but some have found it truly, if you will, a spiritually cleansing experience,” he said.

Kagin has said he doesn’t particularly care who he’s offending with his actions, and that he is acting completely within his rights. “You can mock anything you want because you have the right to,” he said. “Humor is humor and what types of humor are you going to outlaw?” he said.

He conceded that although it may not be good manners to continually take a mocking stance toward religion, “in many cases, it is the only real response.”

Kagin said he thought some people might get overly offended by his poking fun at religion. “If someone is so secure in their faith, why are they the least bit concerned about some little atheist mocking them?” he asked. “I think the reason they are worried and concerned is the very deep fear that if everyone doesn’t believe it, maybe it isn’t so.”

For Kagin, this struggle between godless and god-fearing hits very close to home: his son, Steve Kagin, is a fundamentalist minister in Kansas.

He founded Camp Quest, a secular summer camp for young nonbelievers, many of whom, he says, have been harrassed or hounded for their lack of faith.

And then there’s this interesting twist. His own son, Steve Kagin, is a fundamentalist minister in Kansas.

Kagin said that his son claims to have a personal revelation in Jesus Christ. “I am totally unable to say that’s not true,” he said. “There are examples all through history of quite sane people who have had such experiences. I don’t think it is but I’m not going to say it isn’t.”

When asked if he is pained by their opposing views on this issue, Kagin chuckled. “Oh, one wonders where they went wrong,” he said. He and his son, Steven, have an excellent relationship, Kagin said, but they do have their limits.

“We just understand there are certain things we really can’t, at this point, talk about,” he said.

“I don’t lose much sleep over [it] because everyone has the right to do what they want to do within the law,” he said. “That’s what I believe in.”

As Cambridge completed her de-baptism, she expressed no qualms about how it might be perceived. “Sometimes you’ve got to have shock value,” she said. “There’s some times where you just have to shock people into getting attention and from there, they ask questions… And maybe they learn a bit.”

Kagin said that he saw the conflict between atheists and believers as America’s religious civil war. He said bad manners are a reasonable weapon in that war, but he said it was unlikely that atheists would emerge as the victors.

“Atheists have no chance whatsoever of prevailing in a direct confrontation with believers,” he said. “There are far too many [believers].”

Courtesy of http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/atheists-conduct-de-baptisms/story?id=11109379&page=3

Florida Atheists Sue Over Prayers at City Meetings

A Central Florida atheist organization has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Lakeland over opening city commission meetings with prayer.

The lawsuit comes after the Atheists of Florida voiced specific outrage over the use of the name “Jesus Christ.” An April 5 meeting became heated after a citizen got into a yelling match with the atheists, prompting commissioners to recess the meeting.

Courts have ruled invocations at meetings of government bodies are constitutional under some conditions. Lakeland’s policy has been ruled constitutional by the 11^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which stipulated that governments must make a reasonable effort to incorporate all religious faiths.

But Atheists of Florida argues the city isn’t following the court’s guidelines.

“Lakeland clearly has Christian-based prayers. They’ve designated this city as a Christian city. They’ve totally excluded any other types of religious or nonreligious views,” EllenBeth Wachs, director of its Lakeland chapter told TheLedger.com.

The lawsuit contends that the Lakeland policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The group also alleges that while attending commission meetings that they were made to feel uncomfortable because they did not stand during the invocation and omitted the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance.

TheLedger.com contributed to this report

Courtesy of http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/13/florida-atheists-sue-prayers-meetings/?test=latestnews

Chavez, Venezuelan church clash over freedoms

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez and leaders of the Venezuelan Catholic Church are tangling like never before, angering parishioners who feel the president and his clerical detractors aren’t following Jesus Christ’s creed of brotherly love.

Over the past week, Chavez has said that Christ would whip church leaders for lying. Cardinal Jorge Urosa, speaking from Rome, countered he was right to warn the Vatican that Chavez is curbing freedoms.

Some parishioners are concerned over the tensions between Chavez and conservative priests, who are speaking out against what they see as the socialist leader’s increasing authoritarianism. Venezuela is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. Polls consistently show the church, which wields significant influence, is among the nation’s most respected institutions.

“I don’t like the insults that Chavez hurled against the cardinal, but I don’t like seeing the Church getting involved in politics either,” said Amanda Ortiz, 47, after attending Sunday Mass at a church in downtown Caracas. “Both sides are losing respect for each other.”

During one recent speech, Chavez accused Urosa of misleading the Vatican with warnings that Venezuela is drifting toward dictatorship. During another public address, he urged the Vatican to replace Urosa, while heaping praise on a government-friendly priest he thinks should be appointed cardinal.

“May God forgive him, because he knows that he’s lying. The cardinal who accuses me of running roughshod over the constitution knows that he’s lying,” Chavez said. “If Christ were to physically appear, what would he do with them? I have no doubt that he’d whip them.”

In a newspaper column published on Sunday, the president denied he’s steering Venezuela toward a dictatorship.

“We’re advancing toward the complete democratization that we’ve called ‘Bolivarian socialism,’ whose primary objective is to give power to the people,” wrote Chavez, referring to his political movement named after 19th-century independence hero Simon Bolivar.

Chavez, who served as an altar boy growing up in Venezuela’s sun-baked plains region, remains a Catholic and sometimes jokes that he could have become a priest himself. He also often declares that his government’s policies are strikingly similar to values outlined in the Bible.

Returning Sunday from the Vatican, Urosa said he hopes to reduce tensions between the government and church. He rejected charges from Chavez backers that the church’s hierarchy is siding with a coalition of opposition parties ahead of legislative elections in September.

“We are not members of any opposition coalition,” he said.

Urosa said he would not respond to Chavez’s latest remarks.

Urosa argues that Chavez aims to copy Cuba’s communist model and has raised concerns the president is borrowing tactics from his close allies – Raul and Fidel Castro – to sideline adversaries and muffle dissent.

The cardinal cites the government’s refusal this year to renew the licenses of dozens of radio stations, effectively removing them from the airwaves.

Urosa also notes the predominantly pro-Chavez National Assembly has approved legislation taking power away from elected officials sided with the opposition while another ally, the attorney general, has filed criminal charges against several prominent media executives and government foes.

Opposition leader Julio Borges defended Urosa on Sunday and backed the cardinal’s accusations that Chavez is seeking to reproduce Cuba’s economic and political model, but the politician said the president “tries to hide it with a lambskin to distract and fool the population.”

Courtesy of http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071103400.html?hpid=sec-religion

University of Illinois professor fired for teaching about Catholic beliefs in class on Catholicism

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter Monday to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign officials on behalf of a popular, highly regarded professor who was fired for explaining the position of the Roman Catholic Church on human sexual behavior to members of his Introduction to Catholicism class.

“A university cannot censor professors’ speech–including classroom speech related to the topic of the class–merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “To fire a professor for teaching the actual subject matter of his course is outrageous. It’s ridiculous that a school would fire a professor without even giving him a chance to defend himself when he simply taught Catholic beliefs in a class about Catholic beliefs.”

Dr. Kenneth Howell, who had been teaching at the university since 2001, was relieved of his duties based in part on an anonymous complaint sent via e-mail to university officials. The e-mail was sent by the friend of an anonymous student who claimed to be “offended” by a May 4 email Howell sent to students elaborating on a class discussion on Catholic beliefs about sexual behavior. The May 4 e-mail from Howell addressed a May 3 lecture in which he explained how the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual conduct. He properly stated the church’s teaching that homosexual conduct is morally wrong, framing the issue in the context of natural moral law.

ADF attorneys see Howell’s case as part of an ominous trend on campus. Mike Adams’ ongoing suit against officials from the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, and June Sheldon’s lawsuit against officials from San Jose City College demonstrate that professors can be punished for merely expressing their viewpoint, and now, for even teaching the very material that is the subject of a class.

“The First Amendment protects the ability of faculty to speak freely, especially when the material is of direct relevance to the class,” added French. “Professors’ careers cannot be made to stand or fall based on the emotions of intolerant, anonymous students who do not yet understand that opposing viewpoints exist within a free society.” 

• ADF Center for Academic Freedom Web site

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

 

ADF files brief in support of National Day of Prayer’s constitutionality

CHICAGO — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief Friday in support of the federal government’s  appeal of a federal judge’s ruling declaring the observance of the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. Millions of Americans and thousands of local leaders have traditionally prayed for the nation and its leaders during the annual event, which was codified by Congress in 1952.   

“Public officials should be able to participate in public prayer activities just as America’s founders did, and a recent federal judge’s ruling should not prevent America’s cities from lawfully observing the National Day of Prayer,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster. “We are confident that the 7th Circuit will uphold the federal statute setting a day for the National Day of Prayer.”

On April 15, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb, for the Western District of Wisconsin, issued an opinion striking down the National Day of Prayer statute as violating the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, Crabb stayed her ruling until all appeals in the lawsuit, Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama, are exhausted; therefore, the court did not order the cancellation of this year’s National Day of Prayer. In March, ADF attorneys succeeded in having Shirley Dobson, chairperson of the private non-profit National Day of Prayer Task Force, dismissed from the lawsuit.

ADF attorneys sent letters to mayors across the country two weeks before Crabb’s decision, urging them to observe and participate in last May’s National Day of Prayer event, and resist unfounded demands from activist groups to discontinue honoring the day. The day after the April 15 ruling, ADF sent follow-up letters to mayors across America, informing them that the federal judge’s decision striking down the National Day of Prayer statute as unconstitutional in no way impeded their observance of this year’s 59th annual observance .The Obama administration appealed the judge’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit the week after it was issued.   

In 1952, President Harry Truman signed into law a joint resolution by Congress to set aside an annual National Day of Prayer. Congress amended the law in 1988, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan, specifying that the annual event would be observed on “the first Thursday in May each year.” However, atheists and activist groups have challenged the constitutionality of local government recognition of the event by claiming Establishment Clause violations. ADF attorneys argue that such contentions are without merit.

The tradition of designating an official day of prayer began with the Continental Congress in 1775, after which George Washington issued a National Day of Thanksgiving Proclamation. Ever since, American presidents have made similar proclamations and “appeals to the Almighty.” ADF attorneys note that proclamations and appeals of state and local officials are no different. Historically, including 2010, all 50 governors, along with U.S. presidents, have issued proclamations in honor of the National Day of Prayer.

For more information on ADF efforts to defend the National Day of Prayer visit www.savethendop.org.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

 

www.adfmedia.org | twitter.com/adfmedia

Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions

BOSTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts found Thursday that a law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, ruling that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston sided with the plaintiffs in two separate cases brought by the state attorney general and a gay rights group.

Although legal experts disagreed over how the rulings would fare on appeal, the judge’s decisions were nonetheless sure to further inflame the nationwide debate over same-sex marriage and gay rights.

If the rulings find their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld there, they will put same-sex marriage within the constitutional realm of protection, just as interracial marriage has been for decades. Seeking that protection is at the heart of both the Massachusetts cases and a federal case pending in California over the legality of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said federal officials were reviewing the decision and had no further comment. But lawyers for the plaintiffs said they fully expected the Obama administration to appeal. An appeal would be heard by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico.

In the case brought by Attorney General Martha Coakley, Judge Tauro found that the 1996 law, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, compels Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to receive federal money for certain programs.

The other case, brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, focused more narrowly on equal protection as applied to a handful of federal benefits. In that case, Judge Tauro agreed that the federal law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying benefits to one class of married couples — gay men and lesbians — but not others.

Neither suit challenged a separate provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But if the cases make their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld, gay and lesbian couples in states that recognize same-sex marriage will be eligible for federal benefits that are now granted only to heterosexual married couples.

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Judge Tauro wrote in the case brought by Ms. Coakley. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”

Proponents of gay rights embraced the rulings as legal victories.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who argued the case. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”

Chris Gacek, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a leading conservative group, said he was disappointed by the decision.

“The idea that a court can say that this definition of marriage that’s been around forever is irrational is mind-boggling,” Mr. Gacek said. “It’s a bad decision.”

Massachusetts has allowed same-sex couples to marry since 2004, and while more than 15,000 have done so, they are denied federal benefits like Social Security survivors’ payments, the right to file taxes jointly and guaranteed leave from work to care for a sick spouse.

In the Coakley case, the judge held that that federal restrictions on funding for states that recognize same-sex marriage violates the 10th Amendment, the part of the Constitution that declares that rights not explicitly granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, belong to the states.

The Obama administration’s Justice Department was in the position of defending the Defense of Marriage Act even though Barack Obama had called during the 2008 presidential campaign for repealing it. Scott Simpson, when arguing the case on behalf of the government in May, opened by acknowledging the administration’s opposition to the act, but saying he was still obliged to defend its constitutionality.

“This presidential administration disagrees with DOMA as a matter of policy,” Mr. Simpson said at the time. “But that does not affect its constitutionality.”

Some constitutional scholars said they were surprised by Judge Tauro’s opinions in the two cases.

“What an amazing set of opinions,” said Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School. “No chance they’ll be held up on appeal.”

Professor Balkin, who supports the right to same-sex marriage, said the opinions ignored the federal government’s longstanding involvement in marriage issues in areas like welfare, tax policy, health care, Social Security and more. The opinion in the advocacy group’s case applies the Constitution to marriage rights, he said, undercutting the notion that the marriage is not a federal concern.

“These two opinions are at war with themselves,” he said.

The arguments concerning the 10th Amendment and the spending clause, if upheld, would “take down a wide swath of programs — you can’t even list the number of programs that would be affected,” he said.

By citing the 10th Amendment and making what is essentially a states’ rights argument, Professor Balkin said Judge Tauro was “attempting to hoist conservatives by their own petard, by saying: ‘You like the 10th Amendment? I’ll give you the 10th Amendment! I’ll strike down DOMA!’ ”

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, was more supportive of the logic of the two opinions, and said they worked together to establish a broad right of marriage for same-sex couples.

“The key issue in this case, and in all litigation about marriage equality for gays and lesbians, is, Does the government have a rational basis for treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples?” he said. “Here, the court says there is no rational basis for treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples. Therefore, DOMA is unconstitutional, and conditioning federal funding on compliance with DOMA is unconstitutional.”

A central issue in the fight over the constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban is whether laws restricting gay rights should be held to a tougher standard of review than the “rational basis” test, and so Judge Tauro’s decision takes a different path that would eliminate the need for that line of argument, Professor Chemerinsky said.

“There’s no need to get to higher scrutiny if it fails rational basis review,” he said.

Courtesy of http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09marriage.html?pagewanted=2&hp

God’s Place in Canadian Charter Challenged

When a judge last month ruled that a Catholic high school in Montreal could choose its own religious curriculum, in defiance of an order by the Quebec government, he wrote that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically referred to “the supremacy of God” in its preamble. Now, in the ruling’s aftermath, some are wondering whether that language is out of place in a society that has grown increasingly secular.

“From an atheist’s perspective, what happens to those who don’t believe God exists?” asks Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Canada in Toronto.

“If God needs to be defended [by a court], then does God need to be defended by those of us who don’t believe in God?”

Mr. Trottier this week called for a change to the Charter to remove the “supremacy of God” phrase, something that would be nearly impossible to accomplish. But his public objections have sparked a debate about why Canada shows such reverence in a prime legal document to the divine.

Related

• A full interview with the Dean of the Osgoode Law School Lorne Sossin about the place of “Supremacy of God” in the charterThe phrase was cited by Superior Court Judge Gérard Dugré in June, as he ruled that Loyola High School, a Jesuit private school, did not have to use the provincial religion curriculum and could teach ethics and religion from a Roman Catholic point of view. He called Quebec’s demand on the high school “totalitarian,” using the preamble to the Charter to make his case.

“Canadian democratic society,” the judge wrote, “is based on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the primacy of the law — both of which benefit from constitutional protection.”

The clause has rarely been invoked in Canadian jurisprudence, perhaps only once before.

“I was astonished to see that in the case,” said Janet Epp Buckingham, a legal scholar and the former legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. But she was pleased to see it noted in a major case and said it is was long overdue that a judge would make note of the preamble.

“Courts always refer to the ‘rule of law’ and ignore the ‘supremacy of God.’ But the supremacy of God should be considered equally valuable because it points to the importance of religion in Canada.”

Many believe then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau included the line in the Charter in 1982 as a way to appease to Christians.

Trudeau was even quoted at the time saying that “ it was strange, so long after the Middle Ages that some politicians felt obliged to mention God in a constitution which is, after all, a secular and not a spiritual document.” The Charter also includes a separate declaration affirming freedom of religion and conscience.

Lorne Sossin, dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, said there is clear reason it has been used so rarely.

“Both because the preamble is secondary to the text of the Charter and because the public neither expects nor is comfortable with open expressions of religious views by judges.”

In 1999, the British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to the phrasing as a “dead letter” which the justices had “no authority to breathe life” into for the purpose of interpreting the Charter. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada raised objections to the interpretation in a document to the court.

By calling it a “dead letter,” Ms. Buckingham explained, the judge was essentially saying: “Nobody uses it, so don’t even bother with it. It’s basically meaningless.”

However, Ms. Buckingham, now the director of the Ottawa-based Laurentian Leadership Centre, a school where top evangelical students are trained to work in government and in other spheres of public life, said the phrase is essential to ensure that freedom of religion is not defined too narrowly and interpreted in a “secular fashion.”

“[To be interpreted in a secular fashion] means religion becomes privatized and people should not have to be exposed to it — whereas the preamble shows that religion is part of Canadian life and should have as broad and expansive definition as possible. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.”

Much of Western law is based on such religious precepts as the Ten Commandments. In that way, Mr. Sossin said, the phrase can be seen as a “metaphor” that highlights the Charter’s moral foundations. The phrase should not, he added, be taken as a literal acknowledgement of the divine.

Mr. Trottier said he takes no comfort from the rarity of its use and nor should God’s supremacy be considered part of Canadian society. He noted there is no good way that the principle of the supremacy of God can be consistently used in a legal framework.

“How would do you reconcile the ‘rule of law with the ‘supremacy of God?’ They are contradictory.

“The Charter is such an important legal document and the document that all our other legal traditions are supposed to be consistent with.  So it’s really important that in enshrine the most fundamental values of Canadians. And I’m concerned when God is a foundation for authority.”

There is probably little chance that an such an amendment to remove the phrase would survive the long and complicated process it would take to remove it from the Charter. Any amendment would need the approval of the House of Commons, the Senate and a two-thirds majority of the provincial assemblies representing at least half the population, a process that could take years and is seen as unlikely. 

Canadian legal scholar Peter Hogg, who holds the unusual position of scholar in residence at the noted legal firm Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Toronto, said it would not be worth the time and effort to remove the phrase.

 “I don’t think anything would change if the phrase were removed, because the guarantee of freedom of religion is what does the work in protecting religious belief and practice.” 

National Post

Read more: http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/07/08/gods-place-in-charter-challenged/#ixzz0tFPfGBJM