We Support the Mt. Soledad Cross!

Recently, we filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the Mt. Soledad memorial cross located in San Diego, CA.  Shortly after the Korean War ended, members of an American Legion Post founded the Mount Soledad Memorial Association to honor the sacrifice of the countless Americans who died during that conflict and the two World Wars.  With the permission of the City of San Diego, they constructed a memorial cross to honor the fallen. Congress said of the cross: “[t]he Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial was dedicated on April 18, 1954, as ‘a lasting memorial to the dead of the First and Second World Wars and the Korean conflict’ and now serves as a memorial to American veterans of all wars, including the War on Terrorism.”

Our case rests on the fact that this Memorial was built with a secular purpose in mind – to honor our fallen soldiers and to preserve their memory.  In our opinion, a cross is a standard symbol used to honor our heroes.

However, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that “the record before us does not establish that Latin crosses have a well-established secular meaning as universal symbols of memorialization and remembrance.”  In addition, they concluded (erroneously, in our opinion) that the alleged religious or anti-religious motives of private individuals who donate memorials to the government are relevant in determining a law’s primary purpose and effect in Establishment Clause cases.

We believe strongly in the meaning and symbolization of this cross, and we will continue to fight against those that wish to tear it down.  Our amicus brief has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we will keep you updated on the progress of this case.  Your prayers are appreciated!

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Historical Lessons: Has America learned or are we doomed to repeat it?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."George Santayana, philosopher and poet

I have recently read and heard political leaders and writers who have expressed concern regarding our democratic form of government.  In one instance, presidential candidate Ron Paul was quoted as warning that the United States is “slipping into a fascist system where it’s a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of individual rights of each and every American citizen.”       

While some commentators think that this statement is too extreme, there can be no question that our individual liberties are, in fact, eroding.  In a similar vein, I have recently read comparisons of the progression that is occurring in the United States to the progression that occurred in Nazi Germany.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the world watched in horror as Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, sought dominion throughout Europe, and orchestrated one of the most deadly genocides then known to mankind.  It is easy to look back at history from our vantage point and ask: Where were the German Christians, and why didn’t they confront this tragedy en masse?  Why didn’t they do more to protect life, individual rights, and religious liberty?

We must ask ourselves these very questions now, or generations to come may look back at this very time in history and ask: Why did my parents, grandparents and other Christians silently allow the government to take away our individual liberties?  Why didn’t the Christian Church take a coordinated public stand in defense of religious liberty?

I am not saying that our government is akin to Adolf Hitler and his murderous regime.  However, the suppression of individual liberties in America today, like the suppression of individual liberties in Germany before the war, can only be accomplished when the conscientious citizens of this Nation are silent and do nothing.

In the early 1930s, when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, he stated his belief that Christianity was the “unshakeable foundation of the moral and ethical life of our people,” yet the ultimate ideals of the National Socialist movement were hostile towards religion.  Leading into the Holocaust, Hitler instituted a plan to strip away the religious liberties of German citizens.

Hitler slowly eroded the rights of the Christian Church—he permitted a remnant of worship but eliminated the church’s cultural influence.  After signing a concordant with the Catholic Church and establishing the German Christian Church (which upheld Nazi principles), Hitler and his administration gradually began to suppress the rights of Evangelical Christians and Catholics—ending denominational and youth organizations, prohibiting denominational schools, and widely defaming and imprisoning clergy of the Christian Church who refused to be silent about the truth.  The goal was to get the German people away from the Church’s conservative beliefs and on board with the Nazi’s radical plan of racism and aggressive warfare.

In modern day America, we often hear our leaders voice a shallow reverence toward our Christian heritage, while the actions of those same leaders show little respect for our heritage.   Even though our current administration has stated a belief in the faith of our Founding Fathers and the importance of religious liberty, many of its actions undermine the rights of religious institutions.

Most recently, “Obamacare” requires all businesses, including many religious organizations, to provide birth control and sterilization services free of charge to employees.  When the Catholic Church, whose teachings prohibit the use of any type of birth control, spoke out against this policy, President Obama offered a feeble “compromise,” saying the insurance company (instead of the church or religious business) would pay for the birth control.  But who ultimately pays the insurance company in the end?

We see an increasing progression of hostility by governmental officials and media toward Christians for expressing their faith in the public arena.  Christian student groups, such as the Christian Legal Society, are banned from recognition on campuses.  Christian groups are banned from using public facilities.  The so-called “separation of church and state” is beat like a war drum by governmental officials while the IRS threatens religious organizations with removal of tax exempt status for taking a stand on political issues.

Even our “war on terror” has adopted an alarming perspective.  A new report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), issued in January 2012, details what activity to look for in a potential terrorist through its campaign titled “If You See Something, Say Something.”  The campaign encourages Americans to report suspicious behavior which includes the following characteristics: fiercely nationalistic, reverent of individual liberty, anti-abortion, speaking out against government policies, holding gold, and stocking up on more than 7 days of food.

My point is that we must not succumb to a hopeless attitude when our God-given, inalienable liberties are being eliminated by our government.  This is why we fight for our clients and against policies that limit our individual and religious liberties—because we believe that if we don’t take action now, there may be a time in the future when it is too late to fight.

Please take courage and make your stand now—in the voting booth, in the public square, at work, and in your schools.  Raise the awareness and cherish your liberty!

Robert Tyler, General Counsel

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

U.S. Supreme Court Puts a Stop to Students’ Rights Case

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in our case of student versus teacher.  Our client, Chad Farnan, was a sophomore in a high school Advanced Placement European History class, when he had to endure almost daily statements from his teacher that Chad argued were an unconstitutional attack on Christianity and religion, including the statement: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.” A district court decided that one of the teacher’s statements was unconstitutional, as it expressed "an unequivocal belief that creationism is 'superstitious nonsense.’"  Both parties appealed this case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the district court’s decision and declared that the teacher involved had qualified immunity – meaning that, since there was no clear precedent of a teacher being held liable for his or her statements expressing disapproval of religion, this teacher could not have known that his statements would be unconstitutional.

We then appealed this case to the U.S. Supreme Court, in hopes that they would reconsider the case and provide a final decision in this landmark, precedent-setting case.  However, they have decided not to hear our appeal.

We are disappointed that the highest Court in our nation will not hear this important case, and we agree with Douglas Laycock, a constitutional scholar at the University of Virginia School of Law, who was quoted last year in the Orange County Register:

"They can't hold the teacher liable because the law was not clearly settled. Because they can't hold him liable, the law will never become clear on what teachers can say in class."

Please join us in prayer as we continue to work in defense of the religious and individual freedoms of our students!

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

"Obamacare" Offers Little Room for Religious Liberty

Recently, the Obama administration announced that, as part of Obama’s healthcare mandate known as “Obamacare”, religious and church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for their employees.  Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary, said that nonprofit religious organizations could have an additional year to implement this new requirement. The backlash against this new policy came immediately after the announcement.  Religious institutions will have to comply with this condition, or fight back, or else drop healthcare for their employees altogether and pay a fine to the government.  This particular mandate does give a very limited religious exemption to the rule, but still, only “certain religious employers” will be able to take this protection.  It is not enough.  (You can find the specific religious exemptions at http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/) What about the freedom of conscience that should be afforded to these religious workers?  If something goes directly against their moral beliefs – such as use of contraception or sterilization – how can they, with good conscience, provide this for their employees?

Sister Carol Keehan, President of the Catholic Health Association, responded to this new mandate, saying, “This indicates the need for an effective national conversation on the appropriate conscience protections in our pluralistic society, which has always respected the role of religions.”

Time will tell how many religious institutions will take a stand and defend their religious freedoms and their right to freedom of conscience.  If you work for a religious or church-affiliated organization and are concerned about your rights in this matter, please contact Advocates.

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Victory in Supreme Court Church Case

In January, the freedom of religious institutions to choose their staff and ministers who best reflect the beliefs and values they hold dear was supported by the highest court in our country – the United States Supreme Court.

A teacher at a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church in Michigan was fired, and she told the school that she had consulted with an attorney and planned to fight back about her job termination.  However, the case went before the Supreme Court, who ruled that the teacher’s case would not move forward.

In the court’s decision, Chief Justice John Roberts asserted that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment ensure that the government will not have a say in whom a religious organization hires or fires.  In his opinion, Roberts said:

“The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appointing ministers,” and the “Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own. ” 

Advocates celebrates the decision of the high court, which solidifies the liberties of churches and religious organizations to make decisions that will best serve their congregations and constituents – without fear of governmental interference. 

We have defended countless churches and religious institutions from unconstitutional intrusion by the government into their affairs.  If you, your church, or your religious organization encounter discrimination or violation of your religious freedoms, we are here to help!

This information is provided by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.

Reading the Bible in Public Has Never Been So Controversial

Advocates for Faith & Freedom recently filed a lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol when three men from Hemet, California, were arrested for reading the Bible out loud in front of the DMV.  The facts are indisputable because the entire arrest was recorded.  The video of the arrest can be found here.  All that is missing from this video is approximately 25 minutes of Bible reading from various Bible passages.  There was no disturbance and no preaching - just pure Bible reading.  However, this case has created quite a controversy thanks, in part, to media coverage from local newspapers to Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel to the video being played over 90,000 times on YouTube.The Controversy Begins

Many non-Christians are offended by the teachings of the Bible, so hearing the Bible read in public is especially disturbing to them.  II Corinthians 2:14 speaks of this reality where it says that the Gospel is like the aroma of death to the unbeliever, but life to the believer.  Additionally, many Christians are disturbed by the fact that we filed this case because they strongly disagree with the method of evangelism used by these men – reading the Bible aloud to persons who were waiting in line for the DMV to open.

On the other hand, most people who support our lawsuit are equally disturbed by the officer’s complete disregard of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest unless the arresting officer has reasonable belief that a crime was committed.

A False Arrest

Why were the men arrested?

It was not for trespassing or loitering since they were allowed to be there.  Rather, the CHP officer claimed that it was illegal to “preach” to a “captive audience.”  Of course, there is no such law in the California Penal Code.  Instead, the men were later cited for allegedly violating Penal Code Section 602.1(b), which prohibits individuals from intentionally obstructing or intimidating persons who are attempting to carry on business with a public agency.  However, not only does the video evidence clearly dispute the claim of obstruction or intimidation as the men were more than 50 feet from the DMV entrance, Penal Code Section 602.1(b) expressly states that it does not apply to any “person on the premises who is engaging in activities protected by the California Constitution or the United States Constitution.” Reading the Bible out loud on public property is an activity that is typically protected by both the United States and California Constitutions.

Even though it appears clear to most people that this was an unlawful arrest with no valid probable cause, many Christians and non-Christians alike are offended by what they saw on the video – a man reading the Bible in a loud voice, approximately 20 to 30 feet from individuals waiting in line for the DMV to open for business.  Some people don’t believe that reading from the Bible out loud in public deserves protection under the First Amendment because they think it might be offensive to the ears of unsuspecting recipients.

Is Street Evangelism Wrong?

We have heard from some Christians who say they are embarrassed by persons who engage in “street evangelism,” especially when they observe annoying or offensive witnessing methods.  We have heard from a few Christians who are offended by the evangelistic approach used by these three men in particular and, therefore, do not support the legal action we have taken to challenge these unlawful arrests.

We understand that not everyone agrees with vigorous street evangelism, but not everyone agrees with passive non-confrontational evangelism either.  Some people may have been offended by Billy Graham’s evangelistic approach.  Does that mean that Billy Graham should not have had the right to free speech because some persons disagreed with his message or approach?  Should Martin Luther King’s speeches have been censored because some of the “white establishment” was offended by his remarks – remarks that some would say were offensive and radical?

The First Amendment was not intended to protect speech that everyone agrees with.  In fact, agreeable speech needs no protection.  Rather, freedom of speech applies to offensive speech, annoying speech, and even evangelistic speech.  This is the point of this case.  You don’t have to agree with the method of evangelism to support the fact that our Constitution, and the right of free speech found in the First Amendment, does not allow the police or other governmental officials to decide whether speech is acceptable or constitutionally protected.  If offensive speech is not protected, it may be determined in the future that your church’s door hangers advertising Easter service or the gospel tracks you hand out in front of the homeless shelter are offensive and, therefore, illegal!

In the future, it may be your own method of evangelism that is banned from public dissemination in alleged violation of the First Amendment.  We concluded that even though our clients’ approach to evangelism is offensive to some, their speech must still be constitutionally protected.  Some of the cases we regularly cite to in legal briefs to defend religious liberty are based on highly offensive facts.  For example, one case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court said that the words “F… the Draft”, written on a t-shirt that was worn in a courthouse, is protected speech.

Recently, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the right of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church to stage protests in front of military funerals in order to protest the military’s acceptance of homosexual behavior.  Some of the signs that were held read, “Fag Troops”, “You're Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.”

Speech Is Powerful                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.”  Roberts addressed the captive audience argument by writing, “the Constitution does not permit the government to decide which types of otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for the unwilling listener or viewer.  Rather, ... the burden normally falls upon the viewer to avoid further bombardment of [his] sensibilities simply by averting [his] eyes.”  Roberts summarized his rationale as follows: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and-as it did here-inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course-to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

We Must Support Free Speech

Intellectual honesty is required of Christians, as it is of all American citizens.  True free speech is by nature controversial, and can be difficult to defend when any individual does not agree with the speech for any reason.  If we decide that only our own personal view of Christ-like speech or our method of evangelism deserves constitutional protection, then, eventually your own religious expression may be publicly banned.  The Truth of the Gospel does not return void and American culture desperately and increasingly needs that Truth to be shared.  It is more important than ever to defend the free speech rights of every individual who seeks to share that Truth, regardless of the controversy surrounding the method, in order to ensure that everyone’s right of free speech is protected, for all methods and in all forums, for the sake of future generations and the culture of today.

Another Student Takes a Stand Against Discrimination

Imagine your child is being discriminated against and embarrassed in class by her teacher, because of the teacher’s disdain for her Christian religion.  Would you allow this to go on?

A few weeks ago, we were approached by Heidi Oatis, whose daughter Tommi appeared to be suffering just this kind of discrimination from her seventh grade teacher in Union City, CA.

During her World History Class, Tommi stated that her teacher would frequently make derogatory statements about Christianity.  Here are some of the facts as reported by Tommi:

• During a class discussions, the teacher has referred to Christians as “zombie worshippers” and said it’s a very “bloody religion.”
• When speaking about Jesus’ crucifixion, she told her class that the Bible was false and rhetorically asked, “Why would anyone believe the Bible since it was written 2,000 years ago?”
• In another instance, the teacher held up a picture of someone drinking out of a “Blacks Only” water fountain and compared it to another picture relating to California’s Proposition 8 (the voter-backed initiative to define marriage as between one man and one woman).  As a young African-American, Tommi took offense to this comparison and said it was not fair to equate these two distinct issues.
• Tommi told her mother about these instances in class, among others, and Mrs. Oatis then met with the teacher. After that meeting, the teacher seemed to take out her frustration on Tommi, once walking by her desk, picking up her work, and then slamming it down on her desk, saying something to the effect of, “You think I’m picking on you?”
• Finally, Tommi and her mother met with the Vice Principal and this teacher.  Tommi was practically begging to be removed from this classroom, but the Vice Principal refused.

We are informed that this is not the first instance this teacher has received complaints about her antics and comments during class; we know of several other parents and students who have made complaints.  Still, nothing has been done to rectify the situation.

This month, we sent a demand letter to the Principal of the school and the Superintendent of the school district outlining these events.  We believe that this teacher is violating the Establishment Clause by taking a hostile stance against the Christian religion in her classroom.  We firmly believe that if teachers cannot promote Christianity in the classroom, they must not be free to display hostility towards Christianity, either.

Please keep Mrs. Oatis and her daughter Tommi in your prayers. They are courageous to take a stand on this situation that no one has seen fit to correct yet.  And, please continue to support Advocates with your prayers, as well.  We are waiting on a response from the school district, but if they do not immediately take action, we may have to take this case into litigation.

Putting “Christ” Back in “Christmas”

On Wednesday, January 12^th, members from the community of Elk Grove, CA, gathered at their City Council meeting to hear whether the City would stop using the term “holiday trees,” and instead call them what they are – “Christmas trees.”  The result?  A resounding yes to “Christmas,” and it all happened because of one concerned citizen.

Back in August 2010, Liz Stefanik received a flier referencing “holiday trees.”  Curious about what exactly a holiday tree was, she investigated further and found that the flier had come from the City and was, in fact, alluding to Christmas trees.  It seemed that for legal reasons, the City had decided to use a more generic term to refer to Christmas trees.  Liz attended the next City Council meeting six weeks later and asked if they could discuss why they were using generic terminology, but the Council said that they would have to go through the official process of putting this item of discussion on the agenda for the next meeting.

Finally, five months after she had initially heard of “holiday trees” in City communications, Liz had a chance to stand up for Christmas.  She had come prepared – she brought three of her friends to support the cause, and she called Advocates for Faith & Freedom to get a legal perspective on the issue. General Counsel Bob Tyler assured Liz that, legally, there is nothing wrong with the City referring to “Christmas trees.”  In fact, Bob assured her that if the City faced legal opposition for its reference to “Christmas,” Advocates would provide a legal defense for the City for free!

Armed with this knowledge and supporters at her side, Liz argued her case before the City Council on January 12^th. Immediately, the Council voted 5-0 in support of using the term “Christmas trees.

Liz was overwhelmed by the positive reaction from the Council, and she learned something valuable from this experience. “One person really can make a difference,” she stated.  All it took was her concern, investigation, and action to get this issue addressed and corrected.

Advocates was delighted to be part of this victory, in whatever small way possible.  We know that not all important cases are won after months or even years in a courtroom.  In cases like this, all we need to do is provide a legal perspective and be ready to act if religious intolerance persists.

If you ever hear of religious liberties being violated in your school, work, or community, remember that you can make an impact, and Advocates will be ready to respond!