Purposes that Cultivate Our Hearts

Dear Partner, Over the last two years, my family has developed a particular passion for the people of Haiti due to three recent mission trips my children and I have taken with the Haiti Endowment Fund. Our first mission trip was scheduled just before the earthquake that devastated this small island nation. The earthquake delayed our first trip to Haiti for a short time, a time during which Christian ministries and American humanitarian aid poured into Haiti.

While bringing basic necessities to the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, I have reflected upon the intolerable circumstances of living in Haiti and the blessings we cherish in the United States. If you were born in Haiti, you would likely have suffered from the lack of clean water, lack of food, unending sickness, political corruption, and widespread Voodooworship. However, if you were born in the U.S., you would have likely benefited from the abundance of clean water, healthy foods, antibiotics, democratic values, and widespread Christianity.

Because of God’s blessings, we have been the most generous nation in the world with the provision of humanitarian aid. More importantly, however, Americans have exported Christianity worldwide through the passion of missionaries and humanitarian organizations. In the context of this experience, I have come to view the necessity of our work at Advocates through a clearer lens.It is apparent to me that our work in the U.S. defending liberties has more  importance than  merely  protecting our  individual  right to go to church  or to share our faith.  Rather, the importance of our work extends beyond these liberties to the ability of Christian organizations within the U.S. to initiate and expand their ministries such that their impact is felt worldwide.

For example, we often represent churches that are seeking to rent public facilities in order to hold services but are often denied on the misunderstood application of the so-called “separation of church and state.” Sometimes, churches are wrongfully prohibited

from occupying their own property and, in one specific case, a church-affiliated school was told that it could only expand if the Christian school provided a “secular education Mondays through Fridays.”

            When Advocates stepped-in to defend the Christian school, the City of Los Angeles backed down after we filed a federal lawsuit, and now the school is educating potential ministers and missionaries from a Christian worldview!  If we don’t defend our constitutional liberties, churches may not be able to assemble for services, their teaching may be censored and their ability to send out missionaries and humanitarian aid worldwide may be severely inhibited.Our purpose is greater than mere politics or patriotic principles. We defend the First Amendment right to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and our impact will not only be felt here in the U.S., but internationally as well. Please stand with us so that Christian organizations will be able to flourish in the United States minister to the nations.

Robert Tyler General Counsel

Government Investigating the “Radicalization” of Christians?

           Recently, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) spearheaded an investigation into the radicalization of Muslims in America.  In response, Congressman Al Green (D-TX) argued that Congress cannot single out one religion; if the government is going to investigate the radicalization of Muslims, why not look into the radicalization of Christians in America?

Congressman Green said, "People who see the hearings and never hear about the hearing on the radicalization of Christianity have to ask themselves:  ‘Why is this missing?’  Why don’t we go to the next step and ask, how is it that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to this country?”

It should be no surprise that some liberal politicians and media commentators are in support of labeling conservative Christians.

If you adhere to biblical principles, support traditional marriage and are pro-life, this might  mean  that  you  are  a “Radical Christian.”   In  fact,    many  of  us  would   proudly   carry    the label of “Radical Christian.”

However, just like we condemn the violence of radical Muslims, we would also condemn hateful acts of violence that are purportedly carried out in the name of Christianity.

Though some people want to spin this issue into one of discrimination – claiming we can’t just investigate one religious subset of the population – the radicalization of Muslims in America is a great concern for domestic safety due to the jihadist beliefs of many Muslims.

In fact, Dr. Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (and a devout Muslim), stated, “When we look at the problem of radicalization, the excuses will never run out.  It seems to me that Americans are sitting around doing nothing to combat extremists.”

We will continue to bring any updates to you in the event Congressman Green’s proposal gets any traction in Congress.

       In the meantime, please pray for these ongoing investigations concerning the radicalization of Muslims and for the safety of all Americans from terrorist attacks.

"Something Special": A Strategy That Will Change Our Nation

We defend religious liberty in the courts so that God’s people can lawfully spread the Gospel, pray, and freely worship Him.  We are convinced that prayer is a critical act of worship that will cause the rebirth of our nation – spiritually, morally and even economically.  This divine strategy was implemented for tremendous impact during the Great Awakening of 1857 to 1858, but that time has long been forgotten by most. Following a period of moral decline during the 1850s and during a period of serious economic collapse known as the “Bank Panic of 1857,” one courageous businessman invited other anxious businessmen in New York City to join him for prayer during the noon hour every Wednesday.  In a few months’ time, the lunchtime prayer meeting became a daily meeting that grew to over 50,000 businessmen meeting across New York City.  It quickly spread from coast to coast and affected everyone from judges to janitors.  At times, schools—yes, public schools!—and businesses closed in order to pray and seek God.  People from all walks of life could be seen humbly kneeling together and imploring God for grace.

The effects were immeasurable. It is estimated that at least one million Americans committed their lives to Christ within 18 months.  Though the revival peaked in 1858, it did not stop there.  Throughout the Civil War (1860–1865), camps had great revival meetings and over 150,000 men became Christians in the Confederate army alone.Close to a million people joined churches due to the awakening that swept that land.  It added spiritual strength, gave new importance to the work of laymen in churches, and connected the Gospel with social action in a manner that had not been seen in the country before.  Businessmen were awakened to the assertion that true religion was not merely a spiritual experience, but an active faith that should be evident in their business practices.

Though the Revival of 1857-1858 is barely remembered by secular historians today, it was probably the greatest spiritual rejuvenation ever experienced by the United States of America.  It’s amazing to think that this great revival was started and fueled not by ministers, but by businessmen.  Think of how our nation could progress if we had a similar type of prayer revival.

On Thursday, May 5, 2012, people across America participated in the National Day of Prayer.  Although the tradition of prayer has been a part of our nation since our founding fathers formed our country almost two and a half centuries ago, something special occurred in 1857 that went far beyond an annual prayer meeting.

We need that “something special” to occur today!  And I think I saw “something special” just the other day, when I noticed four high school girls standing at the flag pole in front of their school—gathered in prayer on an ordinary weekday.  That same day, I had lunch with a group of business people planning to start new ministry called Tentmakers, a ministry to teach and encourage business people to use their businesses as a platform to share their faith.  Maybe that “Great Awakening”—like call to prayer is beginning today in smaller pockets, and you are the ordinary American needed to stoke the fire!

Some may ask, “Is that legal?”  The answer: Absolutely! Don’t be worried.  Call us for help or advice.  If you’re challenged, we will be there to defend your religious liberty.

Step out in faith, and start “something special.”  

Two Christians Prosecuted for Reading the Bible in Public

On March 28, a trial court in Riverside County, California, heard arguments why the prosecution's case should be dismissed in the case of People v. Brett Coronado.  Advocates for Faith & Freedom are defending Pastor Brett Coronado and Mark Mackey on misdemeanor charges after they were arrested in front of a California DMV while Mr. Mackey was reading the Bible out loud.  The incident took place on February 2, 2011, in front of a group waiting for the DMV to open for business.   This case has generated national news, such as the story that ran on Fox News Channel today.  View the Fox News video and article here.  Additionally, a YouTube video of the incident and arrest can be viewed here. Both men have been spit on and threatened at other locations in the past when engaging in similar activities.  As a result, it is their practice to video their evangelism to protect them from false accusations - just as appears to be occurring in this case.

Initially, when Mr. Mackey was arrested, the CHP officer stated that it was illegal to "preach to a captive audience." After the defendants were placed in jail and upon learning that no such penal code prohibits preaching to a "captive audience,"  the officer issued a citation for "impeding an open business" with threats or intimidation under Penal Code Section 602.1(b). However, the district attorney again changed the charges claiming trespass after the government realized the business was not actually open and, presumably, saw the video showing no threats or intimidation.

Unfortunately, the trial judge declined to dismiss the case.  Advocates vows to appeal the decision because the trespass law the CHP is currently relying on is  unconstitutional.  In fact, other federal courts that have reviewed the same statutory language used in the California Penal Code have been declared unconstitutional.  A copy of our brief can be found here.

“This is an abuse of power on the part of the CHP,” said Robert Tyler, Associate General Counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom.  “The arresting officer could find no appropriate penal/ code to use when arresting these men.  The purpose of the arrests appears to have been to censor them.”

Advocates for Faith & Freedom has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of these three men for violation of their right to free speech and for unlawful arrest, but that case has been stayed pending the resolution of the state court prosecution. A copy of our federal complaint can be found here.  Also, join us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up-to-date on our progress in this case and others.

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 Goes to the U.S. Supreme Court

For the next two days, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the case to determine whether Obamacare is constitutional or not. Obamacare has come under fire from many different groups, and there are several questions that need to be answered:

• Is Obamacare unconstitutional because of its individual mandate, stating that every person must buy health care, and doesn’t this constrain individual freedom and violate the Constitutional concept of limited government?

• Because there is a penalty for not buying health insurance, will that penalty be considered a tax or a fine?

• Does Obamacare use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions?

Although the individual mandate question is certainly the most contested and controversial, we find the last question regarding abortion coverage to be as important as any other. According to Obamacare policy, enrollees in certain insurance plans will be required to pay a $1 surcharge every month, above their plan fees, for abortion services, whether they plan to use them or not, or whether they believe in them or not.  They will only be informed of this surcharge only one time, upon enrollment in the program – meaning it could simply be one sentence in a giant insurance plan document.  In addition, people won’t be able to opt-out of the abortion surcharge without opting out of the entire insurance plan.

This sounds a lot like forcing Americans to fund abortions, doesn’t it?  If Obamacare is allowed to endure, countless Americans, many of whom are pro-life, will be paying for abortions out of their own pockets.

We will be eagerly watching as this U.S. Supreme Court review unfolds over the next few days, and we ask that you join us in prayer as this monumental decision is made in our nation’s highest Court.

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.

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.